http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/RoachPetition.pdf
June 28, 2013, Roach v. Missouri challenged the dual sovereignty exception to the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. Under this dual sovereignty exception to the Constitution, an individual may be subjected to federal and state prosecutions for the same offense. Roach v. Missouri argues the dual sovereignty doctrine is inconsistent with the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. Back in 2010, Edward Roach was charged by the state for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The federal court also charged Roach for the same offense. The state court dismissed the charges once Roach pleaded guilty to the federal charge. Missouri Court of Appeals then reversed the trial court’s decision on the basis of the dual sovereignty doctrine.
This case presented an opportunity to reexamine the basis of the dual sovereignty exception on the Double Jeopardy Clause. Unfortunately on October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Roach v. Missouri. It’s unfortunate that the Supreme Court declined the case. The Double Jeopardy Clause exists so us Americans are not tried for the same offense twice. Dual sovereignty contradicts the Double Jeopardy Clause and should be ruled unconstitutional.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteDual sovereignty certainly creates an interesting issue in our legal structure. I could easily see this coming up as a Tenth Amendment issue as well, since the state charges are interfering with a federal conviction. With the federal courts and the Constitution given legal superiority, it would seem to invalidate that particular sequence of events. I feel like legally the state charge was appropriate at first, but when the federal court got involved, they withdrew the charge, as they should due to the aforementioned supremacy, and everything should have been fine after that. The fact that the decision was overturned on this basis seems extremely inconsistent with the clause, as you said. I will be quite interested to see if and how this plays out further in the future.
- Brett