The Double Jeopardy Clause states “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This clause is meant to protect U.S. citizens from being tried more than once for the same offense, however, the Dual Sovereignty Exception can
override the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Vlog will cover a couple examples about the Dual Sovereignty Exception overpowering the Double Jeopardy Clause. There will also be a good example about the correct use of the Double Jeopardy Clause. I will also provide an explanation as to why the Dual Sovereignty Exception should be ruled unconstitutional.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Hudson v. United States
Hudson v. United States was argued October 8, 1997 and decided a few days later on October 10, 1997. This Supreme Court Case is about whether or not the Fifth Amendment is being violated when a department, like the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, fines a person and the court also makes charges against the person.
John Hudson was chairman of the First National Bank in Tipton and in Hammon. He took advantage of his position in order to regain some bank stock he used as collateral of loans that were not paid back through a number of bank loans from other parties. The Office of the Comptroller of Currency did some investigating and discovered that the loans were made in violation of various banking statutes and regulations. The Office of the Comptroller of Currency fined Hudson for disregarding the rules and regulations. Hudson also faced criminal indictment in the federal District Court for the same offense. Hudson argued that the federal Court’s indictment violated the Double Jeopardy Clause under the Fifth Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit court ruled that the government did not violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, because the Office of the Comptroller of Currency fined and unbarred Hudson under civil violations and the government was charging him under criminal punishment.
The Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision- written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. The Supreme Court supported the Tenth Circuit’s decision based on the differences between civil and criminal punishments. The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to non-criminal penalties such as civil punishment.
I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling with Hudson v. United States in which the Fifth Amendment was not violated in this particular case. The Double Jeopardy Clause should not be applied towards penalties that are issued by agencies like the Office of the Comptroller of Currency. When an agency fines a person and the government also charges the same person from the same offence it is not in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Isaac Turnbaugh: Man Acquitted Of Friend's Murder Confesses To Police, Walks Free
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/isaac-turnbaugh_n_917477.html
April 12, 2002 Declan Lyons was shot and killed outside of the restaurant he worked at. About a month after the shooting, Isaac Turnbaugh, Lyon’s co-worker and good friend, went to a party and allegedly told multiple friends that he shot Lyons. A friend told Turnbaugh’s mother and she contacted the police. Turnbaugh denied killing Lyons when police questioned him. After police arrested him, Turnbaugh was diagnosed with a serious mental illness. In court, Turnbaugh’s lawyer argued that someone who consumed mushrooms then confessed to multiple things like shooting Lyons and being responsible for 9/11 could not be held seriously. April 6, 2004 after five hours of deliberation, jurors acquitted Turnbaugh of murder.
This was a very tough case for the police. It took one month before they had leads on Lyon’s shooting. When Turnbaugh became a suspect police could not find any motive for him killing Lyons. Everyone at their work (Lyons and Turnbaugh) said the two were really good friends and there was no strain in the friendship.
About nine years later Turnbaugh contacted the police and confessed to the murdering Lyons. There was nothing the police could do, because Turnbaugh is protected from being tried twice for the same crime under the double jeopardy clause (Fifth Amendment). Some believe he confessed due to his mental illness and he is having some sort of relapse. Others think he really is guilty of committing this crime because he gave details that matched the case. Authorities still believe Turnbaugh killed Lyons, but they cannot do anything about it because the Fifth Amendment bars them from doing so.
The Framers created the double jeopardy clause so American citizens will not be tried for the same offense twice. This is a blessing and a curse. On one hand if someone is innocent they will not be tried for the same crime more than once, even if the prosecutors do not like the outcome. On the other hand, if someone is acquitted of an offense and later admits he/she did in fact commit the crime there is nothing the authorities can do about it.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
State v. Knight
Knight and her co-conspirators planned to rob Arren Cole. Knight lured Cole into an alley where one of her co-conspirators robbed and shot Cole. Cole was rushed to the hospital but pronounced dead on arrival. The state of Washington charged Knight with conspiracy to commit second degree robbery, conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, conspiracy to commit first degree robbery, attempted first degree robbery, and first degree murder. Knight negotiated a plea in which she was to testify against her co-conspirators, forfeit her car, and plead guilty to conspiracy to commit second degree robbery, conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, and second degree murder. The court accepted her pleas, reduced them to judgment, and sentenced her to twenty-four years in prison. Knight appealed the court's sentencing claiming that two of the charges were violated the double jeopardy clause. She argued that the conspiracy to commit first degree burglary and the conspiracy to commit second degree robbery are multiple convictions for a single “unit of prosecution.” The Court of Appeals agreed with Knight’s argument and reversed her conviction of conspiracy to commit first degree burglary. The state of Washington petitioned for review arguing the charges were not in violation of the double jeopardy clause. It also claimed that reversing one conviction in a plea agreement was improper without rejecting the whole plea agreement. Washington’s Constitution has the same interpretation of the Fifth Amendment with the addition of a protection for defendants in which it “protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” With this being said, Knight was right in arguing her conviction was unconstitutional.
The court’s findings about the violation of double jeopardy was just. The Court of Appeals determined Knight’s two convictions punished her twice for one conspiracy which is a violation of the double jeopardy clause. Knight’s guilty plea did waive some constitutional protection pertaining to factual guilt, it did not whatsoever waive any protection against double jeopardy.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Benton v. Maryland (1969)
Case Briefing on the Fifth Amendment: Double Jeopardy
Title:
Benton v. Maryland (1969)
Case Facts:
Benton was tried for burglary and larceny in a Maryland state court. The jury convicted him of burglary, but acquitted him of larceny. Benton was sentenced to ten years in prison. The grand and petit juries were selected under an invalid constitutional provision, so Benton was given the option of having a retrial. Benton demanded a retrial and requested to dismiss the larceny count due to double jeopardy. The court denied his motion and in the retrial Benton was found guilty of both charges and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.
Legal Issue:
If Benton was tried and convicted once for burglary, was he placed twice in jeopardy in the retrial?
Decision:
Yes, the retrial was in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause and the court overturned the larceny conviction.
Reasoning:
The Supreme Court ruled the second trial was in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Since there is no protection against double jeopardy in Maryland’s Constitution, the court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause was included in the Fourteenth Amendment under the Due Process Clause.
Conclusion:
This case is a good example of the Double Jeopardy Clause being violated. In the first trial, Benton was acquitted of larceny but in the second trial he was convicted of the same offense. This trial is not like Blueford v. Arkansas where this case was a mistrial due to the jury being unable to agree on a verdict. Benton’s trial was never declared a “mistrial,” he simply wanted a retrial because the jury was selected under an invalid constitutional provision. However, if his trial was declared a mistrial and the court tried Benton again for larceny, the court would not be in violation of the Fifth Amendment.Thursday, March 20, 2014
Blueford v. Arkansas
Supreme Court Case Blueford v. Arkansas began in February 2012. The state of Arkansas charged Alex Blueford for the death of a one year old child. The charge included capital murder, first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. The jury was presented with a verdict form that allowed the jury either to convict Blueford of one of the charged offenses, or acquit him of all charges. The jury unanimously voted against capital murder and first-degree murder but could not agree on a verdict for manslaughter and negligent homicide. After a few hours, the jury announced they could not reach a verdict. Since the jury could not agree on the last two charges, the judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial. Arkansas requested to retry Blueford on all charges. Blueford tried to get the capital murder and first-degree murder charges dismissed under the double jeopardy clause. His motion was denied, because the Supreme Court held that the jury’s decision to acquit Blueford on capital and first-degree murder charges was “unofficial” and therefore, did not constitute a formal acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion that “The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against being tried twice for the same offense. The Clause does not, however, bar a second trial if the first ended in a mistrial.” I agree with Chief Justice Roberts, the double jeopardy clause does not apply to cases that declares a mistrial. Since the jury did not reach a verdict of manslaughter and negligent homicide, Blueford was not convicted or acquitted of capital and first-degree murder so the judge had to declare a mistrial. Technically Blueford was not tried since there was no official acquittal or charge against him so the double jeopardy clause would not apply in this case.
Case Background: November 28, 2007, Alex Blueford was babysitting his girlfriend’s one year old when the child suffered a severe head injury. Blueford says he was on his bed taking a phone call when the child waved a lit cigarette near his face and startled him, knocking the child to the floor. The child was rushed to the hospital and a few days later died from the injuries.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Roach v. Missouri
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)