Podcasts about double jeopardy clause

The primary objectives of criminal law include deterrence (general and specific), incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation, and defining societal norms. Unlike civil law, which aims to compensate a wronged party, criminal law operates on behalf of the state to prosecute and punish wrongful acts in the communal interest.Felonies are typically punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year, while misdemeanors are lesser offenses usually punishable by a fine or incarceration for less than one year. Murder is an example of a malum in se crime because it violates fundamental moral standards, whereas a traffic violation is an example of a malum prohibitum crime because its illegality stems from statute.General intent crimes require the intent to perform the physical act itself, such as intentionally striking someone in battery. Specific intent crimes require an additional subjective intent to bring about a specific result, such as in theft, where the defendant must intend to permanently deprive another of their property.A state generally has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that either occur within its borders or produce harmful effects within its territory. Concurrent jurisdiction arises when more than one sovereign has the legal authority to prosecute the same conduct. The doctrine of dual sovereignty under the Double Jeopardy Clause allows both federal and state governments to prosecute the same individual for the same conduct without violating double jeopardy protections, as they are separate sovereigns.Actus reus refers to the physical component of a crime, which is a voluntary act or a qualifying omission. An omission can constitute actus reus when there is a legal duty to act, the person is physically capable of acting, and they fail to do so, such as a parent deliberately withholding food from their child.Recklessness is a subjective mental state involving the conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk; the defendant must be aware of the risk. Negligence is an objective standard that applies when a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would have recognized, regardless of actual awareness.Strict liability crimes are offenses where no mental state is required; the mere commission of the act is sufficient for liability. These types of crimes are most commonly found in regulatory and public welfare areas such as food safety or statutory rape. For example, a vendor selling contaminated food may be held strictly liable regardless of intent.The principle of concurrence requires that the actus reus (the physical act) and the mens rea (the mental state) coincide in time. This is generally required because criminal liability is predicated on the idea that the wrongful conduct was accompanied by a culpable state of mind.Factual cause, or "but-for" causation, means that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's act. Legal cause, or proximate cause, addresses whether the result is closely enough connected to the act to hold the defendant criminally responsible, considering factors like foreseeability. An intervening cause might break the chain of legal causation if it is unforeseeable and superseding, meaning it was not a natural or probable consequence of the defendant's actions.A principal is the primary actor who commits the criminal act, while an accomplice is someone who aids, encourages, or assists the principal with the intent that the crime be committed. Accomplice liability requires both an act of assistance and the specific intent that the underlying crime be committed by the principal.

​Jury selection for Karen Read's second trial has reached a total of 16 jurors—comprising 12 primary jurors and four alternates. Despite achieving this number, the court has decided to continue the selection process to seat up to 18 jurors, providing additional alternates to ensure the trial proceeds without delays due to unforeseen circumstances. This decision reflects the high-profile nature of the case and the court's commitment to maintaining the trial's integrity. The selection process has been meticulous, with both the defense and prosecution exercising their peremptory challenges to shape a fair and impartial jury. Opening statements are anticipated to commence next week, marking a significant step forward in this closely watched legal proceeding.In a parallel development, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied Karen Read's emergency request to pause her retrial. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acting on behalf of the court, issued the denial without providing an explanation. Read's legal team had argued that retrying her on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, citing statements from jurors in the first trial who claimed they had unanimously agreed to acquit her on those charges. However, since no formal verdict was announced before the mistrial was declared, the courts have ruled that a retrial does not constitute double jeopardy. With the Supreme Court's decision, the retrial will proceed as scheduled, with jury selection continuing and opening statements expected soon.to contact me:bobbbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What the Supreme Court said about delaying Karen Read's trialKaren Read retrial: 16 jurors selected, 2 more sought for case

​Jury selection for Karen Read's second trial has reached a total of 16 jurors—comprising 12 primary jurors and four alternates. Despite achieving this number, the court has decided to continue the selection process to seat up to 18 jurors, providing additional alternates to ensure the trial proceeds without delays due to unforeseen circumstances. This decision reflects the high-profile nature of the case and the court's commitment to maintaining the trial's integrity. The selection process has been meticulous, with both the defense and prosecution exercising their peremptory challenges to shape a fair and impartial jury. Opening statements are anticipated to commence next week, marking a significant step forward in this closely watched legal proceeding.In a parallel development, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied Karen Read's emergency request to pause her retrial. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acting on behalf of the court, issued the denial without providing an explanation. Read's legal team had argued that retrying her on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, citing statements from jurors in the first trial who claimed they had unanimously agreed to acquit her on those charges. However, since no formal verdict was announced before the mistrial was declared, the courts have ruled that a retrial does not constitute double jeopardy. With the Supreme Court's decision, the retrial will proceed as scheduled, with jury selection continuing and opening statements expected soon.to contact me:bobbbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What the Supreme Court said about delaying Karen Read's trialKaren Read retrial: 16 jurors selected, 2 more sought for caseBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Jury selection for Karen Read's second trial has reached a total of 16 jurors—comprising 12 primary jurors and four alternates. Despite achieving this number, the court has decided to continue the selection process to seat up to 18 jurors, providing additional alternates to ensure the trial proceeds without delays due to unforeseen circumstances. This decision reflects the high-profile nature of the case and the court's commitment to maintaining the trial's integrity. The selection process has been meticulous, with both the defense and prosecution exercising their peremptory challenges to shape a fair and impartial jury. Opening statements are anticipated to commence next week, marking a significant step forward in this closely watched legal proceeding.In a parallel development, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied Karen Read's emergency request to pause her retrial. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acting on behalf of the court, issued the denial without providing an explanation. Read's legal team had argued that retrying her on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, citing statements from jurors in the first trial who claimed they had unanimously agreed to acquit her on those charges. However, since no formal verdict was announced before the mistrial was declared, the courts have ruled that a retrial does not constitute double jeopardy. With the Supreme Court's decision, the retrial will proceed as scheduled, with jury selection continuing and opening statements expected soon.to contact me:bobbbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What the Supreme Court said about delaying Karen Read's trialKaren Read retrial: 16 jurors selected, 2 more sought for caseBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Karen Read's high-profile retrial just took a dramatic constitutional turn. In this episode, we break down the emergency petition her legal team filed with the U.S. Supreme Court—arguing that retrying her violates the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. While jury selection was already underway in Dedham, Massachusetts, her attorneys went to the nation's highest court claiming that the first jury had already reached a unanimous—but unannounced—“not guilty” verdict on two of the three charges. Now they're asking the Court to intervene. We walk you through exactly what's in the petition, why her legal team believes her retrial is unconstitutional, and how courts in Massachusetts and the federal system have responded so far. This isn't just a legal technicality—it's a strategic, last-ditch effort to stop the trial in its tracks. From the original mistrial to the court rulings that rejected her double jeopardy claims, we trace every step of the legal fight that led to this extraordinary moment. Finally, we explore what happens next. Will the Supreme Court take the case? What are the chances they'll intervene mid-trial? Could this reshape how mistrials and jury deliberations are handled across the country? Whether you're following the Karen Read trial daily or just tuning in, this episode gives you a deep, clear, and fact-driven look into one of the most pivotal legal battles unfolding right now. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's high-profile retrial just took a dramatic constitutional turn. In this episode, we break down the emergency petition her legal team filed with the U.S. Supreme Court—arguing that retrying her violates the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. While jury selection was already underway in Dedham, Massachusetts, her attorneys went to the nation's highest court claiming that the first jury had already reached a unanimous—but unannounced—“not guilty” verdict on two of the three charges. Now they're asking the Court to intervene. We walk you through exactly what's in the petition, why her legal team believes her retrial is unconstitutional, and how courts in Massachusetts and the federal system have responded so far. This isn't just a legal technicality—it's a strategic, last-ditch effort to stop the trial in its tracks. From the original mistrial to the court rulings that rejected her double jeopardy claims, we trace every step of the legal fight that led to this extraordinary moment. Finally, we explore what happens next. Will the Supreme Court take the case? What are the chances they'll intervene mid-trial? Could this reshape how mistrials and jury deliberations are handled across the country? Whether you're following the Karen Read trial daily or just tuning in, this episode gives you a deep, clear, and fact-driven look into one of the most pivotal legal battles unfolding right now. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's high-profile retrial just took a dramatic constitutional turn. In this episode, we break down the emergency petition her legal team filed with the U.S. Supreme Court—arguing that retrying her violates the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. While jury selection was already underway in Dedham, Massachusetts, her attorneys went to the nation's highest court claiming that the first jury had already reached a unanimous—but unannounced—“not guilty” verdict on two of the three charges. Now they're asking the Court to intervene. We walk you through exactly what's in the petition, why her legal team believes her retrial is unconstitutional, and how courts in Massachusetts and the federal system have responded so far. This isn't just a legal technicality—it's a strategic, last-ditch effort to stop the trial in its tracks. From the original mistrial to the court rulings that rejected her double jeopardy claims, we trace every step of the legal fight that led to this extraordinary moment. Finally, we explore what happens next. Will the Supreme Court take the case? What are the chances they'll intervene mid-trial? Could this reshape how mistrials and jury deliberations are handled across the country? Whether you're following the Karen Read trial daily or just tuning in, this episode gives you a deep, clear, and fact-driven look into one of the most pivotal legal battles unfolding right now. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Rights This document reviews the key themes and critical facts from the provided lecture excerpt, “Lecture 4 Constitutional Law: Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Rights.” The document focuses on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and their impact on criminal procedure. I. Overview The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments form the cornerstone of criminal procedure in the U.S. Fourth Amendment: Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, emphasizing the warrant requirement and exceptions. Fifth Amendment: Safeguards against self-incrimination, establishing Miranda rights and the Double Jeopardy Clause. Sixth Amendment: Guarantees crucial trial rights, including the right to counsel, speedy and public trial, confrontation, and compulsory process. II. Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure 1. What is a Search? The Supreme Court's interpretation of a "search" evolved from physical trespass to a focus on privacy. A search occurs when: The government intrudes on an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz v. United States). The government physically trespasses on property to obtain information. 2. What is a Seizure? Property: Occurs when the government significantly interferes with an individual's possession. Person: Occurs when a reasonable person would feel unable to leave an encounter with law enforcement (e.g., arrests, stops). 3. Reasonableness and the Warrant Requirement Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. A valid warrant requires: Probable cause Issuance by a neutral magistrate Particular description of the place and items/persons to be searched/seized. III. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement Several exceptions permit warrantless searches and seizures: Exigent Circumstances: Imminent destruction of evidence, hot pursuit, public safety threats. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest: Search of arrestee and immediate area (limited for vehicles by Arizona v. Gant). Automobile Exception: Probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband/evidence. Plain View Doctrine: Seizure of evidence/contraband in plain view if incriminating nature is immediately apparent. Consent: Voluntary consent by a person with authority. Stop and Frisk (Terry Stops): Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (less than probable cause), and a limited pat-down for weapons if the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous. Special Needs and Administrative Searches: Administrative inspections, border searches, drug testing, checkpoints. Inventory Searches: Routine cataloging of items in lawfully impounded vehicles/property. Community Caretaking Functions: Warrantless entries/searches for community welfare reasons. IV. Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be excluded. Derivative evidence ("fruit of the poisonous tree") can also be excluded. Exceptions: Good Faith Exception: Reliance on a facially valid, later invalidated warrant. Clerical Errors: Innocent clerical errors by court employees. V. Fifth Amendment: Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights 1. Miranda Warnings: Required for suspects in custodial interrogation. Suspects must be informed of: Right to remain silent. Anything said can be used against them in court. Right to an attorney. Right to a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one. 2. Invoking and Waiving Miranda Rights: Invocation must be clear and unambiguous. Waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. 3. Public Safety Exception (New York v. Quarles): Allows questions before Miranda warnings if there is an immediate public safety concern. VI. Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel and Other Trial Rights 1. Right to Counsel: Attaches at the initiation of formal adversarial proceedings and is offense-specific. 2. Critical Stages of Prosecution: Applies to: Post-indictment lineups and show-ups Preliminary hearings --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in McElrath v Georgia. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibit a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was previously acquitted? The case was decided on February 21, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was found by a jury to be not guilty by reason of insanity. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being tried or punished more than once for the same offense, establishing that a verdict of acquittal is final and prohibits any future prosecution for the same offense. An acquittal includes any decision demonstrating the prosecution's failure to provide sufficient evidence for criminal liability, making such a verdict inviolable and irreversible. This principle is crucial, ensuring the finality and integrity of jury verdicts in protecting defendants' rights. In this case, the jury's verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity on a malice-murder charge constitutes an acquittal, because it signifies the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence for criminal liability. Notwithstanding Georgia law to the contrary, the determination of an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes rests on federal law, rendering the state's characterization non-binding. The validity of an acquittal remains unaffected by the consistency of jury verdicts or any speculation about the jury's reasoning, which is consistent with the jury's exclusive domain to decide on guilt or innocence and the Double Jeopardy Clause's outright prohibition on multiple prosecutions for the same offense. Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion to clarify that the Court's decision does not express any view about whether a not-guilty verdict that is inconsistent with a verdict on another count and is not accepted by the trial judge constitutes an “acquittal” for double jeopardy purposes. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Smith v United States. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a criminal trial's improper venue as to one count require vacatur of the convictions for other counts? The case was decided on June 15, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district. Justice Samuel Alito authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. When a defendant obtains a reversal of a prior, unsatisfied conviction, he may normally be retried, unless retrial would be barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Neither text nor precedent suggests that if a defendant is tried in the wrong venue (in violation of the Venue Clause), the appropriate remedy is an exception to the retrial rule. The purpose of the Venue Clause is not the convenience for the defendant, as Smith argued, but to be near the location of the alleged crimes. Similarly, a trial conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district (in violation of the Vicinage Clause) does not preclude retrial. The Court has repeatedly acknowledged that retrials are the appropriate remedy for violations of other jury-trial rights, and nothing about the Vicinage Clause suggests it should be treated differently. Smith's situation does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause. That Clause prohibits retrial of a criminal defendant when a trial terminates with a finding that the defendant's “criminal culpability had not been established” but does not affect trials that terminate “on a basis unrelated to factual guilt or innocence of the offence of which the defendant is accused.” Reversal of a conviction based on a violation of the Venue or Vicinage Clauses is the latter type because it does not adjudicate the defendant's culpability. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

On February 21, the Supreme Court unanimously decided McElrath v. Georgia, holding that a jury’s verdict that the defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity of malice murder constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes notwithstanding any inconsistency with the jury’s other verdicts.McElrath concerned the case of Damian McElrath, who in 2017 was tried for malice murder, aggravated assault, and felony murder Under Georgia Law, in a case where a defendant is claiming insanity at the time of the crime, the jury can render one of four possible verdicts: Guilty, Guilty but Mentally Ill, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, or Not Guilty. The jury rendered a split verdict, finding McElrath not guilty by reason of insanity on the malice murder charge and guilty but mentally ill on the felony murder and aggravated assault charges. McElrath challenged his guilty but mentally ill conviction as repugnant to his acquittals. The Georgia Supreme Court, instead of overturning his conviction, vacated both the conviction and the acquittal and remanded the case for a retrial. McElrath then filed a plea in bar asserting that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibited the State from subjecting him to a second trial on the malice murder charge. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in November of 2023.Please join us for a post-decision Courthouse steps program where we will break down and analyze this recent decision concerning double jeopardy and criminal law.Featuring:Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation

The Georgia Supreme Court held that a jury's verdict of acquittal on one criminal charge and its verdict of guilty on a different criminal charge arising from the same facts were logically and legally impossible to reconcile. It called the verdicts "repugnant," vacated both of them, and subsequently held that the defendant could be prosecuted a second time on both charges. Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibit a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was previously acquitted?

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was previously acquitted.

Criminal Procedure: Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibit a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was previously acquitted in a contradictory verdict? - Argued: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 15:24:30 EDT

Audio of Denezpi v. United States (2022) Dissenting Opinion The Court of Indian Offenses is a trial court with jurisdiction over Native Americans where there are no tribal courts. Six months after Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo tribe, pleaded guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses, a federal grand jury indicted him for aggravated sexual assault for the exact same event that led to his assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses - and was subsequently found guilty. He challenged his prosecution in federal court, arguing that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution; the Court of Indian Offenses is, after all, a federal agency. The district court ruled against Denezpi, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.   The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses triggers the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The Court said no, it did not.   Music by Epidemic Sound  

Audio of Denezpi v. United States (2022) Majority Opinion  The Court of Indian Offenses is a trial court with jurisdiction over Native Americans where there are no tribal courts. Six months after Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo tribe, pleaded guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses, a federal grand jury indicted him for aggravated sexual assault for the exact same event that led to his assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses - and was subsequently found guilty. He challenged his prosecution in federal court, arguing that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution; the Court of Indian Offenses is, after all, a federal agency. The district court ruled against Denezpi, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.   The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses triggers the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The Court said no, it did not.   Music by Epidemic Sound  

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss an exciting cert grant and the Supreme Court's recent opinions and dissents related to the Double Jeopardy Clause, bingo, and Indian tribes. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegalSend comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss an exciting cert grant and the Supreme Court's recent opinions and dissents related to the Double Jeopardy Clause, bingo, and Indian tribes. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”   Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!   Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq […]

Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo tribe, pleaded guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses. That court is a trial court that exercises jurisdiction over Native Americans where there are no tribal courts to do so. Six months later, a federal grand jury indicted Denezpi on a charge of aggravated sexual assault based on the same underlying events. He was found guilty and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. Denezpi challenged his prosecution in federal court, arguing that it violated the Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause because the Court of Indian Offenses is a federal agency. The district court ruled against Denezpi, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign prosecutes them. Credit: Oyez, Justia Supreme Court Center, available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-7622 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

A case in which the Court will decide whether an individual can be prosecuted in the Court of Indian Offenses and also in federal court for the same offense without violating the Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, in regard to a US citizen or resident of the US. The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One provision of the Fifth Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. Another provision, the Double Jeopardy Clause, provides the right of defendants to be tried only once in federal court for the same offense. The self-incrimination clause provides various protections against self-incrimination, including the right of an individual to not serve as a witness in a criminal case in which they are the defendant. "Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term often used to invoke the self-incrimination clause when witnesses decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate them. In the 1966 case of Miranda v Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the self-incrimination clause requires the police to issue a Miranda warning to criminal suspects interrogated while under police custody. The Fifth Amendment also contains the Takings Clause, which allows the federal government to take private property for public use if the government provides "just compensation." Like the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment includes a due process clause stating that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fifth Amendment's due process clause applies to the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to state governments. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause as providing two main protections: procedural due process, which requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process, which protects certain fundamental rights from government interference. The Supreme Court has also held that the Due Process Clause contains a prohibition against vague laws and an implied equal protection requirement similar to the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Text. The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It's more than just a 1999 film starring Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones.. The Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. The relevant part of the Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . . "   Speaking of double jeopardy.. R.I.P Alex Trebec In the winter of 1991, Jennifer Watts was 17. She had a two year old son named Paul Eugene. People called him PJ. Jennifer had separated from the boy's father and was living with a new boyfriend, 28 year old Michael Lane.  February 10th, 1991, Jennifer went to church and left Michael at home to babysit PJ...and that was the last time Little PJ was seen alive.   Sponsors betterhelp.com/creeper tryfirstleaf.com/creeper buyraycon.com/creeper   Links: Patreon.com/truecrimeguys MERCH: truecrimeguys.threadless.com OhMyGaia.com Mohave High Creations truecrimeguys.com Facebook Twitter/Instagram: @TrueCrimeGuys @AndImMichael @sandupodcast Patreon.com/TrueCrimeGuys STICKERS CREEPER MERCH    

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re covering Supreme Court advocacy and the separate sovereigns doctrine with Michael Scodro, partner at Mayer Brown. We discuss Mr. Scodro's experiences arguing before the Supreme Court and the Court's recent Gamble decision, which analyzed whether the Double Jeopardy Clause protects a defendant from prosecution by both the state and federal governments. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

On June 17, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Gamble v. United States, a case challenging the validity of the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.In 2015 Terance Gamble, who had previously been convicted of second-degree robbery in Alabama state court, pleaded guilty in state court to possessing a firearm in violation of Alabama’s law against firearm possession by anyone convicted of a “crime of violence.” Federal prosecutors thereafter relied on the same facts to charge Gamble with violating the federal statute that forbids convicted felons to possess a firearm. Gamble moved to dismiss the federal charge, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded a second conviction for essentially the same offense. The district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected Gamble’s argument due to the “dual sovereignty” or “separate sovereigns” doctrine, which holds that two offenses are not the same for Double Jeopardy purposes when pursued by separate (here, state and federal) sovereigns. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the separate sovereigns doctrine should be overturned.By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, declining to overturn the dual sovereignty doctrine. His majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Dissenting opinions were filed by Justice Gorsuch and Justice Ginsburg.To discuss the case, we have Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute.

On June 17, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Gamble v. United States, a case challenging the validity of the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.In 2015 Terance Gamble, who had previously been convicted of second-degree robbery in Alabama state court, pleaded guilty in state court to possessing a firearm in violation of Alabama’s law against firearm possession by anyone convicted of a “crime of violence.” Federal prosecutors thereafter relied on the same facts to charge Gamble with violating the federal statute that forbids convicted felons to possess a firearm. Gamble moved to dismiss the federal charge, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded a second conviction for essentially the same offense. The district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected Gamble’s argument due to the “dual sovereignty” or “separate sovereigns” doctrine, which holds that two offenses are not the same for Double Jeopardy purposes when pursued by separate (here, state and federal) sovereigns. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the separate sovereigns doctrine should be overturned.By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, declining to overturn the dual sovereignty doctrine. His majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Dissenting opinions were filed by Justice Gorsuch and Justice Ginsburg.To discuss the case, we have Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute.

Everyone knows that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment means you can not be criminally tried for the same thing twice, right? Well, you actually can. The “Dual Sovereign Doctrine” allows for a state court AND a federal court to punish you for the exact same thing. That’s what happened to Terance Gamble, who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in Alabama state court where he was sentenced to one year of incarceration. Then, because the federal government does not have enough to do, he was charged for the same thing in federal court where he received a 46 month sentence.   The post The Law episode 45: Gamble v. United States appeared first on Speakeasy Ideas.

A case in which the Court upheld its “separate sovereigns” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.

In Currier v. Virginia, Justice Gorsuch, writing for a 5-4 majority, held that where a criminal defendant elects to sever charges into multiple trials, he cannot, after acquittal at the first trial, argue that the Double Jeopardy clause precludes the second trial from occurring. In Currier, the government charged the defendant with burglary, grand larceny, and felon in possession of a firearm. All three charges arose from an alleged home invasion, in which the government argued the defendant participated. Consistent with a Virginia state rule, the defendant and government jointly moved to sever the felon in possession charge from the other counts to avoid undue prejudice to the defendant. Despite acquittal on the burglary and grand larceny charges, the government opted to follow-through with a second trial on the felon in possession count, even though to convict, the second jury would have to conclude that the defendant participated in conduct for which the first jury acquitted him. While emphasizing that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects re-litigation of offenses (as opposed to issues), the Court concluded that the defendant's consent to severance ended the analysis. Justice Kennedy, who provided the decisive vote, wrote a concurring opinion saying further analysis was unwarranted in this case. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas, went further, however, in a part of the opinion which Justice Kennedy did not join, addressing the dissent's opinion (written by Justice Ginsburg) head on and laying out the dangers of importing civil issue preclusion principles into criminal law through the Double Jeopardy Clause. According to the dissent, these arguments sought to upend clearly established Supreme Court case law to the contrary. The stage appears to be set, therefore, depending on the views of Justice Kennedy's replacement, for the Court to revisit past precedents that arguably incorporate principles of civil issue preclusion into criminal law, as the conservative bloc on the Court seeks to return the Double Jeopardy clause to its original focus on offenses, not issues. Featuring: John Hill, Deputy Chief, Felony Major Crimes Section, United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In Currier v. Virginia, Justice Gorsuch, writing for a 5-4 majority, held that where a criminal defendant elects to sever charges into multiple trials, he cannot, after acquittal at the first trial, argue that the Double Jeopardy clause precludes the second trial from occurring. In Currier, the government charged the defendant with burglary, grand larceny, and felon in possession of a firearm. All three charges arose from an alleged home invasion, in which the government argued the defendant participated. Consistent with a Virginia state rule, the defendant and government jointly moved to sever the felon in possession charge from the other counts to avoid undue prejudice to the defendant. Despite acquittal on the burglary and grand larceny charges, the government opted to follow-through with a second trial on the felon in possession count, even though to convict, the second jury would have to conclude that the defendant participated in conduct for which the first jury acquitted him. While emphasizing that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects re-litigation of offenses (as opposed to issues), the Court concluded that the defendant's consent to severance ended the analysis. Justice Kennedy, who provided the decisive vote, wrote a concurring opinion saying further analysis was unwarranted in this case. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas, went further, however, in a part of the opinion which Justice Kennedy did not join, addressing the dissent's opinion (written by Justice Ginsburg) head on and laying out the dangers of importing civil issue preclusion principles into criminal law through the Double Jeopardy Clause. According to the dissent, these arguments sought to upend clearly established Supreme Court case law to the contrary. The stage appears to be set, therefore, depending on the views of Justice Kennedy's replacement, for the Court to revisit past precedents that arguably incorporate principles of civil issue preclusion into criminal law, as the conservative bloc on the Court seeks to return the Double Jeopardy clause to its original focus on offenses, not issues. Featuring: John Hill, Deputy Chief, Felony Major Crimes Section, United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On November 29, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Bravo-Fernandez v. United States. A jury convicted petitioners Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martínez-Maldonado of bribery in violation of 18 U. S. C. §666 but acquitted them of conspiring to violate §666 and traveling in interstate commerce to violate §666. The jury’s verdicts were therefore irreconcilably inconsistent, and the petitioners’ convictions were later vacated on appeal because of error in the judge’s instructions unrelated to this inconsistency. On remand, Bravo and Martínez moved for judgments of acquittal on the standalone §666 charg­es, arguing that the issue-preclusion component of the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the Government from retrying them on those charges. The District Court denied the motions, and the First Circuit affirmed. -- The question before the Supreme Court was whether the eventual invalidation of petitioners’ §666 convictions undermined the United States v. Powell instruction that issue preclusion does not apply when the same jury returns logically inconsistent verdicts. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the First Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the issue-preclusion component of the double jeopardy clause, which bars a second contest of an issue of fact or law raised and necessarily resolved by a prior judgment, does not bar the government from retrying defendants after a jury has returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts of conviction and acquittal and the convictions are later vacated for legal error unrelated to the inconsistency. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. -- And now, to discuss the case, we have Paul Crane, who is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law.

On June 9, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle. Sanchez Valle was charged by Puerto Rico prosecutors with the illegal sale of weapons and ammunition without a license in violation of Puerto Rico law. While that charge was pending, he was indicted by a federal grand jury for the same offense, based on the same facts, under federal law. He pled guilty to the federal indictment but sought dismissal of the Puerto Rico charges on Double Jeopardy grounds, arguing that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico agreed but the Commonwealth appealed. The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the federal government are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. -- By a vote of 6-2, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars Puerto Rico and the United States from successively prosecuting a single person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws. The majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Alito. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Lance Sorenson, who is the Olin-Searle Fellow in Constitutional Law at Stanford University.

On January 13, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle. Sanchez Valle was charged by Puerto Rico prosecutors with the illegal sale of weapons and ammunition without a license in violation of Puerto Rico law. While that charge was pending, he was indicted by a federal grand jury for the same offense, based on the same facts, under federal law. He pled guilty to the federal indictment but sought dismissal of the Puerto Rico charges on Double Jeopardy grounds, arguing that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico agreed but the Commonwealth appealed. -- The question now before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the federal government are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. -- To discuss the case, we have Scott Broyles, who is Professor at Charlotte School of Law.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments this week in Puerto Rico v. Valle, a case which seeks to answer whether the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Federal Government are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution.