The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to say Charging someone on Federal and State Levels for the Same Crime doesn't Violate Constitutional Protections against Double Jeopardy.
The Case involved Terance Gamble, an Alabama Man who was unable to Possess a Firearm because he was a Felon and who was Charged by both State and Federal Prosecutors. He argued both Prosecutions Violated the Double Jeopardy Rule.
The Court, however, said Established Law says State and Federal Governments are Separate Sovereigns and can each Prosecute for the Same Offense.
Justice Samuel Alito delivered the Majority Opinion. "We have long held that a crime under one sovereign's laws is not 'the same offence' as a crime under the laws of another sovereign," Alito said. "Attacking this second prosecution of double jeopardy grounds, Gamble asks us to overrule the dual-sovereignty doctrine ... but the historical evidence assembled by Gamble is feeble; pointing the other way are ... 170 years of precedent. Thus, where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws and two 'offences.'"
The Decision may Impact former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, who has been Convicted on both State and Federal Levels. A Presidential Pardon would only Absolve him of the Federal Offense.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch voted against the Majority.
The other place in the Constitution talks about Double Jeopardy is Impeachment.
The Constitution, Article I, Section 3, provides that “the Party convicted [by the Senate in an impeachment proceeding] shall nevertheless be Liable and Subject to Indictment, Trial, Conviction, and Punishment as provided by Law.” Indicating there is No Double Jeopardy issue. A President can be Indicted after Impeachment of No Longer Serving as President, and be Charged for the Violations stated in the Impeachment.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment