Benton v. Maryland (1969)

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/784/case.html

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.

Blueford v. Arkansas

                 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1320

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.

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.

http://politix.topix.com/story/7133-double-jeopardy-and-the-zimmerman-trial-can-he-be-tried-all-over-again

George Zimmerman: Can He Be Tried Again?

Zimmerman was found not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter. Now, the Department of Justice wants to charge Zimmerman for a civil rights violation (hate crimes statute) in relation to the Trayvon Martin case. Isn’t this considered double jeopardy? The Federal government does not think so. And actually, the Double Jeopardy Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a way that will allow the State AND Federal government to charge someone for the same case because they are “separate sovereigns.” The clause has been interpreted incorrectly. When the Fifth Amendment was created, there was little overlap between the State and Federal government, so the Founders did not specify the Double Jeopardy Clause applies across sovereigns. As a result of this misinterpretation there is currently a case being appealed to the Supreme Court, Roach v. Missouri. This petition challenges the notion that double jeopardy does not apply to both State and Federal government simultaneously. Next post will go into greater detail about Roach v. Missouri.

Here’s a little background on the Trayvon Martin case:

The Zimmerman trial was a very controversial case over the past few years. In Sanford, Florida two years ago, George Zimmerman fatally shot 17 year old Trayvon Martin. According to Zimmerman, he was driving to the store when he saw someone acting suspicious so he called the police. Martin spotted Zimmerman and ran, so Zimmerman left his vehicle to see which direction he was running. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he should not run after Martin and the call was ended. Zimmerman states that he began walking back to his vehicle after hanging up with the dispatcher and that is when Martin approached Zimmerman. Martin punched Zimmerman in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman screamed for help but no one responded. Martin spotted the gun Zimmerman was carrying and tried to grab it. As both men were struggling for the gun, Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest. Zimmerman said it was self defense and the police could not find any evidence against him so they let him go.

 http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130526-man-arrested-in-murder-case-goes-free-because-of-double-jeopardy.ece 


                            A Murderer Goes Free Because of Double Jeopardy

     A recent case in double jeopardy happened about ten months ago in Dallas, Texas. A man named Sharone Sylvester Brown was accused of killing his girlfriend, but he couldn't be charged with murder because he was charged with misdemeanor assault against his girlfriend. His girlfriend, Sherry Whitacre was very weak from on going cancer treatments when this incident happened. On an April, night Brown and Whitacre were drinking when Brown got angry with Whitacre so he punched her in the head then picked her up and threw her outside onto the sidewalk. The police were called to the scene and Whitacre refused to be taken to the hospital. Brown was arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault. What the police didn't know was that Whitacre was taken to the hospital six hours after the assault and later died of an "unexplained death." In the meantime, prosecutors had no idea that Whitacre died, otherwise they would have waited for the autopsy results. Brown pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and served twenty days in jail. Six days after Brown was convicted, the medical examiner notified police that Whitacre's death was a homicide. The medical examiner found her cancer, a fractured thigh bone, and other medical problems were the cause of her death.  May 1, 2013, police arrested Brown on suspicion of murder. Police then realized they could not charge Brown with murder because they charged him with misdemeanor assault for the same case.
     Because of the Fifth Amendment, Brown could not be charged twice in the same case. This is an unfortunate case where double jeopardy may not be such a bad thing. Brown was sentenced to sixty days in jail but served twenty days for killing his girlfriend.

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.

Introduction

      The Fifth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without do process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

     This blog will cover the portion of the Fifth Amendment about double jeopardy: "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".