Ty Webb
Hostage to Fortune
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2001
- Posts
- 6,524
Yank McCobb said:Read (even a little bit) about the law and the definition of "double jeopardy" (which I admit I didn't do at first, but have recently done) and you will see how this does not even approach "double jeopardy" so that Constitutional protection simply does not apply in this case. If they appeal based on this defense, they will stand zero chance.
C'mon, Cobb . . . . . . it's still subject to interpretation. It still sounds to me like a typical instance of "how much justice can you afford?".
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 306 (1984).
However, stretching the bounds of logic, the courts have decided that since the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns and therefore successive prosecutions based on the same underlying conduct do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if the prosecutions are brought by separate sovereigns. See, e.g., U.S. v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1438 (9th Cir.'94).
But, double jeopardy may exist if the federal prosecutors were mere 'tools' of the state or that the federal proceeding was a 'sham' carried out at the behest of the state. Koon, at 1438.
They might have broken a few rules, or took a few liberties with their female party guests . . . . but I'm not going to sit here, and let you bad mouth the United States of America, Cobb.