Trials for Same Crime in Both State and Federal Court Allowed
WASHINGTON -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld a longstanding rule allowing both state and federal prosecutors to pursue charges against the same individual for the same crime.
The 7-2 decision handed down by the justices preserves an exception to the U.S. Constitution’s ban on trying someone twice for the same offense.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. said the court has long held “that a crime under one sovereign’s laws is not ‘the same offence’ as a crime under the laws of another sovereign.
“Under this ‘dual-sovereignty’ doctrine, a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct under a federal statute,” he said.
The case decided Monday was a loss for Terance Gamble, a federal prison inmate who was prosecuted by both the state of Alabama and the federal government for possessing a firearm after a previous felony conviction for robbery.
Gamble argued that the two prosecutions unfairly lengthened his sentence.
But by the time the case was argued in December, there was much more at stake than how long Gamble would remain behind bars.
Three years ago, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas, polar opposites on the court, both questioned whether the rule should be considered.
In a dissent to Monday’s ruling, Ginsburg continued to question its wisdom, calling it an “adherence” to a “misguided doctrine.”
Also dissenting was Justice Neil Gorsuch, who bemoaned the exemption from the double jeopardy as a vehicle for trying the same individual for the same crime until society is happy with the result.
But in a 17-page concurring opinion, Thomas said the historical record simply “does not bear out my initial skepticism.”
Thomas also expounded on something that’s become a theme of his in recent years — his belief that Supreme Court precedents are worth as much — but no more — than the paper they are printed on.
“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent by rule is simple: We should not follow it,” he wrote.
The outcome of the case was closely watched because it has some bearing on the future prosecution of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on mortgage fraud and other charges in New York.
Manafort has also been sentenced to more than 7 years on federal conspiracy and fraud convictions in federal courts in Washington, D.C. and Alexandria, Virginia.
Though Trump could pardon Manafort for his federal convictions. Monday’s ruling by the Supreme Court means he will still likely have to answer the charges filed by the Manhattan district attorney’s office.
A president’s pardon power does not extend to state charges.
The case is Gamble v. The United States. No. 17–646.
In The News
WASHINGTON (AP) — Many questions remain unanswered about the failure to prevent the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. But after six congressional hearings, it's clear that the Capitol Police were unprepared and overwhelmed as hundreds of Donald Trump's supporters laid siege to the building.... Read More
WASHINGTON - Thirty years ago today, on March 3, 1991, a Los Angeles motorist named Rodney King was severely beaten by four White police officers wielding metal batons, an event that would ultimately seal his place in recent civil rights history. This morning, the Library of Congress announced... Read More
CHICAGO - A federal judge on Tuesday put off approval of a proposed $92 million class-action settlement by the social media app TikTok, wanting to give attorneys at least 21 days to address his questions about the proposal. U.S. District Judge John Lee gave the attorneys... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI Director Chris Wray is set to testify for the first time since the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, with lawmakers likely to press him on whether the bureau adequately communicated with other law enforcement agencies about the potential for... Read More
Congress needs to create mandates to curb the abusive power exerted by a handful of online platforms, according to all six witnesses at a Capitol Hill hearing on Thursday. During the hearing, members of a House Judiciary subcommittee grappled with solutions to address the ability of... Read More
Four panelists warned today that proposed legislative reforms for more aggressive antitrust enforcement in Big Tech would likely spill over across all industries, hindering innovation and harming consumers. Strengthening the antitrust laws - federal and state statutes that restrict the formation of monopolies and prohibit dominant... Read More