Article: DOUBLE EXPOSURE: DID THE SECOND RODNEY KING TRIAL VIOLATE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

    

http://0-www.jstor.org.catalog.lib.cmich.edu/stable/27834924   

     Many people question whether or not the second Rodney King prosecution was double jeopardy. The government claimed "dual sovereignty", which is when two governments overlap: state and federal.  Dual sovereignty allows the government to have separate jurisdictions to prosecute the accused for the same crime.  The problem with dual sovereignty is that it tends to be enforced when the outcome is politically unpopular. Other people claimed that the King case was the dual sovereignty exception and NOT double jeopardy because the officers "were not running the same gauntlet".  In the second King case, there was more evidence in proving the officers intentionally deprived King of his civil rights.  So, The question is "Was the federal King trial double jeopardy or was it the dual sovereignty exception?"  This article illustrates the fine line between the dual sovereignty exception and double jeopardy.  Dual sovereignty should be prohibited because it is a way for the government to have a retrial if they believe that person/s is guilty. For instance, take the case of a Montgomery man.  This is a case about a man whose bank account showed $50,000 (which was a mistake).  The man withdrew the money and the state charged him with embezzlement.  He was acquitted from state charges only to be charged with bank fraud by the federal government. The man tried to claim double jeopardy but was unsuccessful. 
     It's as if the federal and state governments are tag teaming.  Fortunately or unfortunately (which ever you prefer), there are ways around double jeopardy. I believe it unlawful to have the federal government try someone after the person was acquitted from the state courts, because in my eyes the dual sovereignty exception is the same as double jeopardy.