Stop Ignoring Double Jeopardy

[Dave70968]

Great explanation. I worded my response wrong, but I'm not in the business, so my bad although the difference in innocent and not guilty seem to be the same.

No worries, and the only reason I mentioned it is because it was directly germane to the issue of the civil suit.

In civil court, a conviction (guilty verdict) can be used as very strong evidence to support the plaintiff, almost enough to stand on its own; a "not guilty" isn't dispositive; though the defense can try to use it, it doesn't have nearly the same strength as an finding of actual innocence would.

 

[okierider]

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I'm going to clarify something: American courts don't find anybody "innocent," just "not guilty," the latter meaning that "the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof." I mention it because there are some systems that have three possible outcomes: guilty, not guilty, and innocent. The first and last are declarative, the middle is simply "there's not enough evidence to convict," but isn't actually an exoneration. The American "not guilty" is similarly not an exoneration (we don't have provisions for that in our system).

There's a big difference between civil court and criminal, both substantially and procedurally. Subtantially, the cases are brought by different parties because the "wronged" party is different in each type of case. In civil court, it's individuals who are wronged. You burn down my house, I'm out a house; hit my car, and my car (and maybe me) is damaged. Criminal cases are different: they're brought by the state on behalf of the people (some jurisdictions even style them as "The People vs. So-and-so," instead of "State vs. So-and-so"). The theory is that your wrongful actions are harmful to an orderly society as a whole, which instituted the government to secure and protect its rights. The standards of proof are different ("preponderance" in civil, "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal), and the nature of the remedy is different: cash (or certain limited other means) in civil to directly compensate the party harmed, vs. forfeiture to the state and/or incarceration as punishment: the state doesn't draw benefit or compensation from the punishment (in theory), but punishes your misdeed and deters others (again, in theory).

Wikipedia's article on the Double Jeopardy Clause is pretty good, and discusses several well-known cases (OJ Simpson, McVeigh and Nichols, Rodney King). As a personal point of interest, the article also mentions the Petite policy; when my dad* interned in law school for the Assistant U.S. Attorney's office, he wrote a brief in United States v. Bruce Thompson, 579 F.2d 1184 (10th Cir. 1978) that the AUSA presented exactly as he wrote it; his citation to Sullivan v. United States (mentioned in paragraph 22) was what swung Judge Holloway's opinion...and Judge Holloway's own clerk didn't find that case. Again, just a personal story--the issue in Thompson wasn't really a substantive double-jeopardy issue, just an internal DOJ policy.

* Yes, being a lawyer is a genetic disease. And yes, forty years later, dad's still miffed that his brief was presented exactly as he wrote it, and he got absolutely no credit or mention anywhere, even from the AUSA.

OK so not enough evidence to find someone guilty of a crime would say to me there is not enough evidence in a civil case. I know OJ's trial was a travesty and I am glad the families got a little "justice " in civil court, but "not enough evidence" should not change whether it be civil or criminal.

 

[Dave70968]

OK so not enough evidence to find someone guilty of a crime would say to me there is not enough evidence in a civil case. I know OJ's trial was a travesty and I am glad the families got a little "justice " in civil court, but "not enough evidence" should not change whether it be civil or criminal.

It changes because the standard of proof is higher in a criminal trial ("beyond a reasonable doubt") than for a civil trial ("preponderance of the evidence," meaning "more likely than not--51%"). Admissibility of evidence can also be different between the two.

 

[okierider]

It changes because the standard of proof is higher in a criminal trial ("beyond a reasonable doubt") than for a civil trial ("preponderance of the evidence," meaning "more likely than not--51%"). Admissibility of evidence can also be different between the two.

And that makes no sense. Evidence does not change whether civil or criminal, the standard of admissibility should not change either.

 

[gerhard1]

What is the incentive for the federal government to bring charges that duplicate state charges?

Not sure if it answers your question, but in 1964, three young men from New York went to Mississippi to help Blacks register to vote, and disappeared. A few weeks later,their bodies were discovered and their deaths were ruled as homicides.

Very strong evidence pointed to three Klansmen, one of whom was an LEO. They were charged in state court with murder and an all-White jury acquitted them even though the LEO lost his job.

The Justice Department then brought civil rights charges against the three, and they were convicted. The USSC upheld the federal convictions based on the subject of this thread--separate jurisdictions.

While it can be abused, I don't object to the concept in and of itself, if two sets of laws are violated by the same act.

 

[TerryMiller]

Not sure if it answers your question, but in 1964, three young men from New York went to Mississippi to help Blacks register to vote, and disappeared. A few weeks later,their bodies were discovered and their deaths were ruled as homicides.

Very strong evidence pointed to three Klansmen, one of whom was an LEO. They were charged in state court with murder and an all-White jury acquitted them even though the LEO lost his job.

The Justice Department then brought civil rights charges against the three, and they were convicted. The USSC upheld the federal convictions based on the subject of this thread--separate jurisdictions.

While it can be abused, I don't object to the concept in and of itself, if two sets of laws are violated by the same act.

Wouldn't this case have involved different charges, what with the "civil rights charges" being involved. I'd think that if they were different charges, double jeopardy wouldn't apply. Hopefully, one of our lawyers will clue me in as to whether double jeopardy applies to the charges or to the actual crime.

 

[Dave70968]

Wouldn't this case have involved different charges, what with the "civil rights charges" being involved. I'd think that if they were different charges, double jeopardy wouldn't apply. Hopefully, one of our lawyers will clue me in as to whether double jeopardy applies to the charges or to the actual crime.

It applies to the specific charges (or lesser included offenses) as brought by a specific sovereign. One act--say, possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony--can be illegal under statutes at both the state and federal levels, and prosecuted by both. That's the case in the article quoted above.

The case gerhard1 described, of civil rights charges against Klansmen (or the one I mentioned about the Rodney King prosecutions) is a little different. I think a lot of the "dual sovereignty" cases could be avoided if the feds would just stay in their lane, get back to the limited purposes of Article I, Section 8, and stop concerning themselves with ordinary criminal matters (I know, it'd be nice if we could all ride to work on flying unicorns, too). Civil rights (at least the ones in question) are a little different matter: they really are a federal matter in that they're defined by the Constitution, and applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation doctrine. It's fed.gov's job to keep the other governments in line on that point.*

So, yes, dual-sovereignty can apply both to different and substantially-similar charges.


* As a personal opinion, I also think government agents at all levels should be subject to greater scrutiny and oversight, including liability to prosecution; they enjoy enormous power (and the concomitant ability to do harm), and it's an all-volunteer job, so nobody's forcing them to be subject to that scrutiny. Some of those charges, such as "deprivation of civil rights under color of law," can only apply to .gov agents, and again, that's because only .gov agents have the power in the first place; I like the idea of extra liability for those who abuse such power. But that's just me.

 

[dennishoddy]

It applies to the specific charges (or lesser included offenses) as brought by a specific sovereign. One act--say, possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony--can be illegal under statutes at both the state and federal levels, and prosecuted by both. That's the case in the article quoted above.

The case gerhard1 described, of civil rights charges against Klansmen (or the one I mentioned about the Rodney King prosecutions) is a little different. I think a lot of the "dual sovereignty" cases could be avoided if the feds would just stay in their lane, get back to the limited purposes of Article I, Section 8, and stop concerning themselves with ordinary criminal matters (I know, it'd be nice if we could all ride to work on flying unicorns, too). Civil rights (at least the ones in question) are a little different matter: they really are a federal matter in that they're defined by the Constitution, and applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation doctrine. It's fed.gov's job to keep the other governments in line on that point.*

So, yes, dual-sovereignty can apply both to different and substantially-similar charges.


* As a personal opinion, I also think government agents at all levels should be subject to greater scrutiny and oversight, including liability to prosecution; they enjoy enormous power (and the concomitant ability to do harm), and it's an all-volunteer job, so nobody's forcing them to be subject to that scrutiny. Some of those charges, such as "deprivation of civil rights under color of law," can only apply to .gov agents, and again, that's because only .gov agents have the power in the first place; I like the idea of extra liability for those who abuse such power. But that's just me.

Are hate crimes processed by the feds and not the state? I see all the time where the state prosecutes someone, and then the feds step in to prosecute again on hate crimes.
I'm not real happy with the wording of hate crimes because they are racially biased. A minority can walk away from the same offense a White person will be charged with and go to jail. I can post any number of incidents one wants to see in court decisions.

 

[Dave70968]

Are hate crimes processed by the feds and not the state? I see all the time where the state prosecutes someone, and then the feds step in to prosecute again on hate crimes.
I'm not real happy with the wording of hate crimes because they are racially biased. A minority can walk away from the same offense a White person will be charged with and go to jail. I can post any number of incidents one wants to see in court decisions.

Can be either way, depending upon whether the state has hate crime legislation. Those particular laws are more of a "blue state" thing.

I never was much of a fan of making "thoughtcrime" illegal. Punish the harmful act, not the intangible thoughts in someone's mind. And yes, as applied, they certainly seem to be an Equal Protection violation as well...but that's none of my business.

 

[dennishoddy]

yes, as applied, they certainly seem to be an Equal Protection violation as well...but that's none of my business.

Not to start an argument, but that contradicts some comments you've made in the past, but perhaps your saying your not involved in affairs of the feds and prefer to remain with the state?
Not trying to be argumentative.