Dual Sovereigns Exception and the Double Jeopardy Clause
In a case involving the Double Jeopardy Clause, oral arguments were heard on December 6, 2018. The case of Gamble v. the United States was heard by the United States Supreme Court. This case involves a challenge to the Double Jeopardy Clause. It is a legal exception that is 170 years old. This exception is known as the Dual-Sovereigns Exception or the Separate Sovereigns. This case will provide an excellent opportunity to have a discussion concerning Double Jeopardy in general. It will also make it possible to discuss Dual-Sovereigns Exception history. The Supreme Court’s decision on this case will have an impact on successive prosecution practices in general.
Double Jeopardy Clause
This clause makes it possible for any person tried for a crime to not be subject to another trial for the same offense. It avoids a person being put in jeopardy of life or limb twice. The Double Jeopardy Clause makes it possible for an individual to not able to be put on trial twice for the same crime.
O.J. Simpson
Many use the O.J. Simpson case as an example. O.J. Simpson won the 1968 Heisman Trophy and was a successful player in the National Football League. Mr. Simpson allegedly killed his ex-wife and her friend. The trial was a national sensation. A jury on October 3, 1995, found O.J. Simpson was not guilty of committing either murder by a criminal jury.
Book
A book was published in 2007 by O.J. Simpson. Its title was If I Did It. In this book, Simpson tells a story that is purportedly hypothetical and describes how he killed Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown. Should the book provide any additional details or any new information concerning the case, it won’t hurt O.J. Simpson. California can’t use this information for a new trial. Doing this is prevented by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Dual-Sovereigns
The O.J. Simpson case has been considered the only exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. Terrance Gamble,sentenced to a year in prison after Alabama prosecuted him for possession of a firearm. When Alabama’s prosecution of Gamble was pending, he was charged by the federal government for the same crime, but for violating federal law. The federal government used the same set of facts in their case but charged Gamble under federal law. Gamble’s punishment in the federal case was 46 months.
Supreme Court Arguments
There were oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Gamble case. Some legal scholars feel Separate Sovereigns Exception is only valid between two sovereign nations. It was not intended to be used between states within the United States or with the federal government.
Petit Policy
Additional prosecutions using Dual-Sovereigns can happen if a case contains an element of a sovereign offense not within another case. Two limits prevent such prosecutions. The states determine the first limit, and there are currently 20 that reject Dual-Sovereigns Exceptions due to state law. An additional 17 states have placed significant limitations on it. The second limitation stops federal prosecution after state or federal prosecution has occurred and is after the same acts or transactions.
Prerequisites
Three exceptions must be satisfied before Dual-Sovereigns Exception could apply. It must be of substantial interest to the federal government. The interest in the previous prosecution must have been significantly un-vindicated. It must also be proven the defendant’s conduct can be determined to be a federal offense.
It is important for any possession of marijuana lawyer to understand the Dual-Sovereigns as it is currently applied in the law until the Supreme Court determines its fate. In many situations, an attorney will have to work to discourage federal prosecutors from going forward with a case, which could determine if their client will or will not face additional federal charges. Sometime next year the future of Dual-Sovereigns Exception is anticipated to be announced by the Supreme Court.
