Jones , U. This is because juvenile courts have the option to try a minor as an adult. If that court tries the individual as a juvenile, then another trial court may not try that same individual as an adult for the same crime, as doing so would violate the double jeopardy rule.
Ursery , US , the Supreme Court held that civil property forfeitures did not constitute a "punishment" for purposes of the double jeopardy clause. The civil property forfeiture is a remedial civil sanction, and not a punitive criminal "punishment. Please help us improve our site! Lanza 53 that the conviction in federal court of a person previously convicted in a state court for performing the same acts was sustained.
Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. Thus, a state might preempt federal authority by first prosecuting and providing for a lenient sentence as compared to the possible federal sentence or acquitting defendants who had the sympathy of state authorities as against federal law enforcement.
Because a prime purpose of the clause is to protect against the burden of multiple trials, a defendant who raises and loses a double jeopardy claim during pretrial or trial may immediately appeal the ruling; this is a rare exception to the general rule prohibiting appeals from nonfinal orders. During the s, the Court decided an uncommonly large number of cases raising double jeopardy claims. United States, U. The passage is often quoted with approval by the Court.
Bretz, U. DiFrancesco, U. Friedland, Double Jeopardy part 1 ; Crist v. Wilson, U. The first bill of rights that expressly adopted a double jeopardy clause was the New Hampshire Constitution of I, Sec. XCI, 4 F. A more comprehensive protection was included in the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of , which had language almost identical to the present Fifth Amendment provision. In Crist v. But see id. See also cases cited in Bartkus v.
Supreme Court rules that imposing a sentence for both crimes violates the double jeopardy clause. The Court says that such multiple punishments arising out of the same incident are permissible only when the multiple crimes are different as in Blockburger , , and Gore, , not when one crime is a necessary element of the other one, as is the case in felony murder.
In Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon , the U. Massachusetts law allows defendants in certain criminal cases to choose to have their cases heard by a judge or by a jury. If convicted by a judge, the defendant can ask for a new trial in front of a jury. In Lydon , the defendant chose the first option, and the judge convicted him. The defendant then asked for a new trial before a jury.
But he also brought a claim in federal court that the double jeopardy clause prohibited the second trial from going forward, because there had not been enough evidence to convict him at the first trial and that the prosecution should not get a second chance as the Supreme Court ruled in Burks , Halper , the U.
In Grady v. Corbin , the U. Supreme Court considers the case of a defendant who, while driving drunk, crossed a median and crashed into another car, killing a passenger. The defendant pleaded guilty to drunken driving and crossing the median. Soon after, the district attorney brought different charges — for reckless manslaughter, second-degree vehicular manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide. Felix , the U. Supreme Court rules that it does not violate double jeopardy for a defendant to be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime in this case, conspiracy to manufacture, possess, and distribute illegal drugs and for the crime itself in this case, manufacture and possession of illegal drugs.
Announcing an exception to its decision in Grady v. Dixon , the U. But just because a case ends doesn't mean that retrial is barred. Again, a hung jury often allows for a retrial. Similarly, if the defense consents to a mistrial, perhaps because of juror misconduct, the prosecution can usually re-prosecute the defendant.
On the other hand, if a judge declares a mistrial over the defense's objection, the prosecution typically must show a critical need in order to retry the defendant. But that isn't as tough as it might seem. For example, retrial might well be allowed when, despite the defense's protest, a judge declares a mistrial because a juror stopped coming to court. United States v. Wells , F. The double jeopardy guarantee protects only against double prosecution or double punishment by the same "sovereign," or government.
Even if the exact same conduct is at issue, a state prosecuting someone doesn't prevent the federal government from doing the same, and vice versa. Learn more about state vs. The federal prosecution of the officers who beat Rodney King illustrates the "separate sovereigns" principle. The State of California prosecuted the videotaped officers but failed to obtain any convictions. The Los Angeles Riots ensued. The federal government then prosecuted the officers for the same beating, alleging a violation of King's civil rights.
The federal convictions were valid because separate sovereigns had tried the officers. In the case Gamble v. United States , the U. Supreme Court reaffirmed the separate sovereigns doctrine. The defendant in that case had pleaded guilty in state court to the crime of possessing a firearm as a felon.
The federal government also charged the man for the incident in question, but under an equivalent federal law. The Supreme Court noted that sovereigns have their own offenses, meaning that in this kind of case the defendant really isn't being prosecuted twice for the same crime. Accordingly, it decided that the second prosecution didn't violate the double jeopardy principle. Prosecutors often file multiple charges against defendants for the same set of facts.
For example, a prosecutor might charge someone with both assault and assault with a firearm for pointing a weapon at someone else. In that situation, if a jury were to convict the defendant of both offenses, double jeopardy might well block the judge from handing down a separate sentence for each crime. Double jeopardy, like so many criminal law concepts, is intricate.
And the legal rules throughout the country, while often similar, aren't always exactly the same. States, for instance, can have their own double jeopardy protections that supplement the Fifth Amendment.
0コメント