What Is Double Jeopardy?

[CrazyShooter 0]

I had no idea what it meant when i watched the film called Double jeopardy.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).
Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses. In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if 'each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.' Id. at 304.

More recently, in U.S. v. Dixon, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2856 (1993), the Court clarified the use of the 'same elements test' set forth in Blockburger when it over-ruled the 'same conduct' test announced in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), and held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions only when the previously concluded and subsequently charged offenses fail the 'same elements' test articulated in Blockburger. See also Gavieres v. U.S., 220 U.S. 338, 345 (1911) (early precedent establishing that in a subsequent prosecution '[w]hile it is true that the conduct of the accused was one and the same, two offenses resulted, each of which had an element not embraced in the other').

In U.S. v. Felix, 112 S.Ct. 1377 (1992), the Court held that 'prosecution of a defendant for conspiracy, where certain of the overt acts relied upon by the Government are based on substantive offenses for which the defendant has been previously convicted, does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.' Felix, at 1380. See also Saccoccia, 18 F.3d at 798 (citing Felix, at 1384) ('A substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.')

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 306 (1984).

However, stretching the bounds of logic, the courts have decided that since the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns and therefore successive prosecutions based on the same underlying conduct do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if the prosecutions are brought by separate sovereigns. See, e.g., U.S. v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1438 (9th Cir.'94).

But, double jeopardy may exist if the federal prosecutors were mere 'tools' of the state or that the federal proceeding was a 'sham' carried out at the behest of the state. Koon, at 1438.

Close coordination between state and federal authorities, including 'the employment of agents of one sovereign to help the other sovereign in its prosecution,' does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause. U.S. v. Figueroa-Soto, 938 F.2d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.'91), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1098 (1992); accord U.S. v. Paiz, 905 F.2d 1014, 1024 (7th Cir.'90), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 924 (1991) (holding that the fact 'that an Indiana prosecutor was later designated a Special Deputy United States Attorney for purposes of a federal prosecution' was insufficient to establish a sham prosecution). Nor is a county's possible pecuniary interest in a federal proceeding sufficient to transform the federal government into a mere 'tool' of the county.

Notice from mayank:

Copied from here. You have to add quotes to each and everything which is copied from any source, even if it is from your own site.

Edited December 23, 2005 by mayank (see edit history)

[mozart 0]

What this?

Notice from BuffaloHELP:

This post has been brought to you by

Mmm, mmm! Sliced and diced as SPAM-tastic! Warning issued.

Edited December 23, 2005 by BuffaloHELP (see edit history)

[sxyloverboy 0]

*sigh* you should know your not allowed to do that. -,-

[unicornrose 0]

*sigh* you should know your not allowed to do that. -,-

215132[/snapback]

Yes they should know that but not always. That person is a newbie and its their first offense as I can see so far. It happens to alot of new people I have noticed. Most of the time because they skimmed the TOS and all that. Hopefully this person will check on his or her discussion and learn from it.

 

Oh and I have to say that I kind of knew about this subject already. Its a good law. This law had to be made because people were getting tried for the same crime when they were already proven innocent.

 

I don't think I had read the actual law before. It was an interesting read.

[LeAnn Rimes My Angel 0]

Double Jeopardy, that's when they play for double the money I think. It's when things get heated up and there are larger stakes involved when asking the questions to the answers.

[Saint_Michael 3]

yeah im closing this topic it start off bad to begin with and so I will end it as well.