If a person is tried in a State Court on a charge and acquitted and later tried on the same charge in Federal court..Is that double jeopardy?We had a case like that in my State.
2006-09-18 08:34:49 · 7 answers · asked by John G 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Nope. Doubly jeopardy only applies to trials by the same sovereigns. State and federal courts are independent, so trial in state court on state charges has nothing to do with trial in federal court on federal charges.
I don't agree with that interpretation, but that's the current law.
Doubly jeopardy also does not apply if the crimes are sufficiently different, or if the crimes would result in concurrent sentences, or where the trial results in a hung jury, or several other situations.
2006-09-18 08:37:20 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
coragryph is correct: it is well established that the federal constitutional ban on double jeopardy (bis in idem) does not apply to different sovereigns.
California law does prohibit a state trial after trial in a court of another state, the federal government or a foreign country (Coumas v. Superior Court, http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/192P2d449.htm ) but that is exceptional, based on the California state constitution.
Most often, the Feds try the federal case under a different legal theory, such as deprivation of civil rights whereas the state acquittal might have been for murder. The possibility of jury nullification is always in the mind of the prosecutor: a jury may think a second trial on the same charge is unfair, just as you might.
But each case has to be tried on its facts.
2006-09-18 09:03:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the respond on your first question is obtrusive... the guy murders somebody else, then it is not double jeopardy. Double Jeopardy comes from the fifth modification to the U.S. shape whichroughly states that someone shall not be placed in jeopardy greater suitable than as quickly as for the 1st offense. this means that an actually not accountable observing the 1st trial isn't actually necessary - a dismissal with prejudice works besides. as quickly as "jeopardy attaches" (e.g. after a jury is empaneled an sworn) any blunders via the government which motives the decide to throw out the case with prejudice will bring about a bar to greater prosecution. different findings wanting not accountable, including a hung jury or a dismissal devoid of prejudice do not bar next prosecution. one component to recollect although is that double jeopardy purely applies with regard to prosecution carried out via the comparable sovreign. Take as an occasion, that Nichols fellow interior the Oklahoma city Bombing (the next day's the eleventh anniversary via the way). tried and convicted in U.S. District for for violating federal stautes related to killing federal officers. Sentenced to lifestyles in detention center. Later tried and convicted lower back, yet this time via the state of Oklahoma for homicide of those comparable federal officer and 40 six or so others. comparable transaction and prevalence, yet diverse sovreigns. as long as there's a federal statute prohibiting the habit this is likewise prohibited via the state, there isn't any bar from the two prosecutin simply by fact the belief is that the two government's have an activity in dispensing their very own justice.
2016-12-15 10:02:40 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically, but they were probably different charges reflecting the differences between the appropriate State and Federal laws that were violated.
2006-09-18 08:37:40 · answer #4 · answered by Dane 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not double jeopardy
But it does implicate res judicata and claim and issue preclusion
2006-09-18 08:42:36 · answer #5 · answered by BigD 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not double jeprodey the essential elements of the crime being charged were different.
2006-09-18 08:37:05 · answer #6 · answered by titanbooboo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, not if new evidence or witnesses became known to the court
2006-09-18 08:37:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋