General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Has the Mainstream Media Not Done Better, More Informative Reporting on the Gamble v. US Case
This case is critical in relation to the Kavanaugh investigation. Yet, weve heard next to nothing about it. This borders on journalistic malpractice.
still_one
(92,372 posts)LAS14
(13,783 posts)Nevilledog
(51,184 posts)The case has to do with successive prosecutions for the exact same charges. This case has no effect on state charges as long as the do not rely on the exact same evidence.
Gamble was a prohibited possessor. He was arrested and convicted in state court as such. Immediately after the state conviction Gamble was indicted as a prohibited possessor pursuant to Fed law for the exact same incident. The appellant, Gamble, is arguing that two prosecutions for the same event is double jeopardy even though the convictions are from separate jurisdictions. It's important to note that the Federal Government, the DOJ is arguing that these types of prosecutions are NOT DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
In my 27 year legal career it was very rare to see successive prosecutions like this. Usually the state was more than willing to let the Feds bear the cost of prosecution and incarceration.
elleng
(131,075 posts)no soundbites.
CincyDem
(6,385 posts)Would Gamble enable someone, let's just say Don Jr., to confess to a broad range of crimes in federal court and then plea guilty with a long long (long) list of supporting evidence in his pleading...would he then be "immune" to state prosecution using that evidence. of course then he's eligible for a federal pardon assuming he can find someone willing to give it to him ?
brush
(53,833 posts)trump to pardon allies no longer able to be prosecuted on state charges.
Nevilledog
(51,184 posts)If someone wanted to plead straight up to an indictment they could, but that still would not preclude the state from prosecuting state crimes. Gamble is dealing with the same crime, same evidence, two different jurisdiction (fed and state). Gamble also received concurrent sentences for both convictions.
Gamble is asking the SC to overturn a cased named Abbate v. United States, decided in 1959. That's how long dual-sovereignty prosecutions have been around.
Here's the government's petition arguing that dual-sovereignty is settled law:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/28031/20180116184058367_17-646%20Gamble.pdf
Laura in LA
(38 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)I too was initially worried about Gamble. But heres the truth, from jed Shugarman. Jed is very experienced here. Take a read.
Link to tweet
?s=21
onenote
(42,747 posts)The Gamble case was brought in response to an express invitation that someone bring a case challenging the dual sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy clause. That invitation was made in an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Ginsburg didn't mince words in suggesting that it is time for the dual sovereignty exception to go:
"The double jeopardy proscription is intended to shield individuals from the harassment of multiple prosecutions for the same misconduct. Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187 (1957). Current separate sovereigns doctrine hardly serves that objective. States and Nation are kindred systems, yet parts of ONE WHOLE. The Federalist No. 82, p. 245 (J. Hopkins ed., 2d ed. 1802) (reprint 2008). Within that whole is it not an affront to human dignity, Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187, 203 (1959) (Black, J., dissenting), inconsistent with the spirit of [our] Bill of Rights, Developments in the Law Criminal Conspiracy, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 920, 968 (1959), to try or punish a person twice for the same offense?"
If Ginsburg and Thomas are aligned on this issue then, one way or another, there is already is a majority on the Court to roll back the dual sovereignty exception with or without Kavanaugh.
Or, to put the question differently, if Ginsburg and Thomas are two votes to roll back the dual sovereignty exception, where do you think the other six Justices stand on the question? Do only two of them support the Ginsburg/Thomas position? Which two?
There have been a number of posts about the Gamble case on DU and they almost all don't portray the history of the case and the position of the justices accurately.