...Michael Caruso, the Federal Defender in our District.
Congrats to Michael, who is very well-deserving. And I don't just say that because he's a frequent guest blogger.
In another news, it's been a quiet Term at the Supreme Court for criminal cases. The Court took more life out of the double jeopardy clause yesterday in Denezpi v. United States, which starts this way (per Barrett):
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a person from being prosecuted twice “for the same offence.” An offense defined by one sovereign is necessarily different from an offense defined by another, even when the offenses have identical elements. Thus, a person can be successively prosecuted for the two offenses without offending the Clause.
We have dubbed this the “dual-sovereignty” doctrine. This case presents a twist on the usual dual-sovereignty scenario. The mine run of these cases involves two sovereigns, each enforcing its own law. This case, by contrast, arguably involves a single sovereign (the United States) that enforced its own law (the Major Crimes Act) after having separately enforced the law of another sovereign (the Code of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe).
Petitioner contends that the second prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the dual-sovereignty doctrine requires that the offenses be both enacted and enforced by separate sovereigns. We disagree. By its terms, the Clause prohibits separate prosecutions for the same offense; it does not bar successive prosecutions by the same sovereign. So even assuming that petitioner’s first prosecutor exercised federal rather than tribal power, the second prosecution did not violate the Constitution’s guarantee against double jeopardy.
This is why we need more criminal justice warriors like Michael... without them, the system would simply fall apart.
It’s already falling apart. See “The Dual Sovereign Doctrine”. If that’s not legalistic double speak for saying F-you to the double jeopardy clause then I don’t know what is. Identical charges. With identical elements of proof. And because the feds wanted to take a second shot at defendants who got acquitted on gun charges in state court, in a bout of judicial yoga, they came up with the dual sovereign doctrine. We are just one notorious not guilty away from a “second chance doctrine “ where the same sovereign gets to retry a defendant acquitted where “there is new evidence not previously presented to the first jury. “
ReplyDeleteJust wait and see.
Agreed. The decision is bs. Interesting to see Gorsuch dissenting. Congrats to Michael Caruso. Well deserved. He is an excellent FPD.
ReplyDeleteNothing new about double jeopardy. See the Otero case where he was acquitted in federal court on the pipe bombs, he put all over Miami including one that went off in the SAO bathroom. The federal prosecutors actually were duped into a state depo and made objections. Otero was found not guilty 8 if 9 episodes including a NG on the SAO bomb and a bomb at FBI and MPD. Case went all the way to the supreme court and was lost. "different elements" and different sovereigns" according to the appellate opinions. The Indians get the same treatment. Why is anyone surprised?
ReplyDeleteIf the courts allow you to be prosecuted civilly and criminally at the same time or afterwards, why not this too?
ReplyDeleteThe gov’t always gets a second swing, even on appeal.