Categories: world

Supreme Court double jeopardy case could impact presidential pardon power

December 6, 2018 US 0 Views Decades ago, the Supreme Court developed an exception to the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy…

Decades ago, the Supreme Court developed an exception to the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause and it is now being asked to rethink precedent.

De zogenaamde “separate sovereigns exception” bepaalt dat een persoon kan worden bezocht twee keer voor de zelfde overtreding als de prosecutions plaatsvinden in staats- en federale courts. De rationale is dat de staten en de federale overheid zijn verschillende sovereigns.

Critics contend that in the modern day it leads to harassment of defendants – especially the poor – who can not afford to fight on two fronts. De også peker på en nylig tendens de argumenterer har ført til en stigning i føderale retsforfølgelser på områder som traditionelt havde været venstre for staterne.

In addition, it could also affect the presidential pardon power, leading to a question of what would happen if President was to pardon an individual like his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort for federal offenses. Under den undtagelse, en stat kunne med føje føre til retsforfølgelse for de samme forbrytelser.

The case before the justices Thursday was brought by Terance Gamble, who was convicted of second-degree robbery in Alabama in 2008 and 201

3. He was subsequently stopped in 2015 and Gevonden met een wapen in zijn auto. Federal and state law prohibits a convicted felon from possessing a firearm. After convictions in both federal and state courts, Gamble said that his dual convictions prolonged his incarceration by three years.

An appeal court ruled against him citing the Supreme Court precedent which, the court said, “has determined that prosecution in federal and state Trump says Manafort pardon not off the table ” data-src-mini=”//” data-src-xsmall=”//” data-src-small=”” data-src-medium=”//” data-src-large=”//” data-src-full16x9=”//” data-src-mini1x1=”//” data-demand-load=”not-loaded” data-eq-pts=”mini: 0, xsmall: 221, small: 308, medium: 461, large: 781″ src=”″/>

 Trump says Manafort pardon not & # 39; off the table

Gamble appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to overcome the separate sovereigns doctrine.

In court papers, Gamble’s lawyers argued that “for centuries” federal and state criminal justice systems operated with little to no overlap and that state criminal law was dominant.

In the modern day, they say, that has changed.

Presidential Pardon Power Limits?

Although the case does not touch the special counsel’s investigation, some believe that it might have ramifications for Manafort. The President has not ruled out the possibility of a pardon. If the Supreme Court strikes down the exception, a state could, theoretically, prosecute him.

“There is more than nothing to the concern that if the court overturns the separate-sovereigns doctrine, a state could not then prosecute someone like Paul Manafort for the federal crimes for which he might be pardoned,” said CNN legal analyst and University of Texas Law School Professor Steve Vladeck.

“But the criminal jurisdiction of states tends to be so much broader than the federal government that such a move might not close the door to all potential criminal liability in such cases,” Vladeck added.

Adam Kurland, a professor of law at Howard University’s School of Law, doubts the case will impact the Mueller investigation.

“New York Law already has a statute that limits some state prosecutions based on the same conduct as a prior federal prosecution,” he said in a statement.

The Justice Department has urged the court to uphold the separate sovereigns exception, citing the intent of the framers.

“The framers wrote the Constitution to manifest the sovereign power of the United States and the states, including the power to enforce their own criminal laws,” argued Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeff Wall in court papers.

Wall also argued Under långvarig politik, forfølger regeringen kun en føderal retsforfølgelse, når den statlige sagen har efterladt “væsentlig føderal interesse demonstrably unvindicated.”

Published by