Double jeapardy: An extention of first question for clarification.?

Question

I posted a question a while ago about double jeapardy which brought up new questionable aspects. I read up on it online and found this on wikipedia to be interesting.

"Double jeopardy is also not implicated for separate offenses or in separate jurisdictions arising from the same act."

The first question involved a case on a tv program called snapped in which a mother kills her daughters ex bf and is release on a technicality and then prosecuted by federal for the same crime.

I hear from people from the first question that they can do that if its not done by the same enity as the first judgement. but that still doesnt make sense. The constitutional law would supercede federal and state and would have to come in effect. She was tried for the same crime in the unitied states which adheres by the constitution even if by different entities of that same government which makes no sense. If the crimes were different like batter and racial crimes but it was the same exact crime.

Oh wells I give up. I recognize they are both seperate but they both follow the constitution. Just doesn't make sense if they both follow the constitution then they would both adhere to double jeopardy and not try the person for the same crime. I understand the state hasn't tried two times and the federal hasnt tried two times yet the United states in whole has which would make double jeopardy meanigless. If these exceptions were not put into the constitution and are simply loop holes or technicalities. If you say you cant be tried for the same crime twice and then try them both in state and when they fail again in federal then it makes the whole meaning ridiculous cause either way you are tried twice for the crime.

Answer 1

The key to understanding this is that "the same act" (as per your quote above) and "the same crime" are not the same thing.

Example 1: Timothy McVeigh blows up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. He was tried and convicted by the Federal Government for killing 19 federal employees there and could also have been tried by the state of Oklahoma for all the other murders.

Example 2: In the Rodney King beating trials, the 4 police officers were acquitted by the State of California for assaulting Rodney King, but were convicted by a Federal court for violating Rodney King's civil rights.

Thus, one act or offense committed can result in multiple crimes being charged, and those multiple charges can result in different trials (and different verdicts) without violating double jeopardy.

Answer 2

There are two concurrent Jurisdictions in the United States.

Federal and State laws both apply in all states.

(FYI- "Venue" is the concept of geographical context, St. Louis and Kansas City are two different venues.

"Jurisdiction" is the ability of a court to try or hear a certain crime. State Courts and Federal Courts are separate jurisdiction.)

Answer 3

The admendment says no, but lawyer and judges are creative. Remember when the cops got off for state level excessive force against a minority a few years ago, but the feds brought them up on some racially related charges. I can imagine someone being charged with 1st degree murder and being acquitted but then being charged with second degree murder or kidnapping when new, almost undeniable evidence is discovered. Or if the aquitted of the crime but is later charged with someother crime, the system may find a way to give them the maximum sentence to unlawfully punish the person who was previously aquitted of a totally different crime. Take OJ Simpson for instance, do you think that if he is convicted of his latest antics involving breaking the law, that the justice system is not going to take a wack at making him pay for the murders he was aquitted of. Through the looking glass Alice.....

Answer 4

If the petitioners, the cause of action and the crime is the same, its double jeopardy.