General Discussion

DonViejo

(60,536 posts) Mon Jun 17, 2019, 10:28 AM Jun 2019

Supreme Court declines to change double jeopardy rule in a case with Manafort implications

Trump's former campaign manager might have been helped if the case involving an Alabama man on gun and robbery charges had been overturned.

June 17, 2019, 10:12 AM EDT / Updated June 17, 2019, 10:22 AM EDT

By Pete Williams

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to change the longstanding rule that says putting someone on trial more than once for the same crime does not violate the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy — a case that drew attention because of its possible implications for President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.

The ruling was a defeat for an Alabama man, Terance Gamble, convicted of robbery in 2008 and pulled over seven years later for a traffic violation. When police found a handgun in his car, he was prosecuted under Alabama's law barring felons from possessing firearms. The local U.S. attorney then charged Gamble with violating a similar federal law. Because of the added federal conviction, his prison sentence was extended by nearly three years.

The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense. But for more than 160 years, the Supreme Court has ruled that being prosecuted once by a state and again in federal court, or the other way around, for the same crime doesn't violate the protection against double jeopardy because the states and the federal government are "separate sovereigns."

The case attracted more than the usual attention because of the prospect that Trump may pardon Manafort, who was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for violating federal fraud laws. A presidential pardon could free him from federal prison, but it would not protect him from being prosecuted on similar state charges, which were filed by New York. Overturning the rule allowing separate prosecutions for the same offenses would have worked in Manafort's favor.

more
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-change-double-jeopardy-rule-case-manafort-implications-n1014771?cid=public-rss_20190617

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court declines to change double jeopardy rule in a case with Manafort implications (Original Post) DonViejo Jun 2019 OP

A glimmer of hope...nt Wounded Bear Jun 2019 #1

Another one of trump's escape hatches just got blocked Fullduplexxx Jun 2019 #2

though it was the Trump administration arguing that this "escape hatch" should be blocked. thesquanderer Jun 2019 #5

I can't say that I agree that it's ok to be charged twice for the same crime fescuerescue Jun 2019 #3

that's the problem with the Bill of Rights in its origin qazplm135 Jun 2019 #4

I wonder what Ginsburg and Gorsuch would have suggested as a more appropriate remedy, if anything. thesquanderer Jun 2019 #6

Who were the two? And this is a double edged ruling. Trump cannot be pardoned for State Crimes but sarabelle Jun 2019 #7

Gorsuch and Ginsburg dissented fescuerescue Jun 2019 #9

Wasn't ever very likely the Court would rule to limit it's ability to lock people up pecosbob Jun 2019 #8

Wounded Bear

(58,670 posts)

1. A glimmer of hope...nt

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2019, 11:14 AM

Jun 2019

Fullduplexxx

(7,864 posts)

2. Another one of trump's escape hatches just got blocked

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2019, 11:38 AM

Jun 2019

thesquanderer

(11,990 posts)

5. though it was the Trump administration arguing that this "escape hatch" should be blocked.

Reply to Fullduplexxx (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 17, 2019, 12:53 PM

Jun 2019

From the article:

But the Trump administration said the longstanding double jeopardy rule allows states and the federal government to pursue distinct interests without interfering with each other. Changing the current understanding by barring subsequent prosecutions would allow foreign court actions to preclude U.S. trials for crimes against Americans, the government said.

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)

3. I can't say that I agree that it's ok to be charged twice for the same crime

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2019, 11:54 AM

Jun 2019

While it's a nice benefit that Manafort might get to serve a few extra years, I think this is the wrong ruling by a conservative SC.

The spirit of the 5th amendment is clearly intended to eliminate double jeopardy. The notion of "separate sovereigns" when those very same sovereigns cover the same person in the same location is a weak excuse IMO.

The 5th amendment is way more important than punishing a semi-obscure criminal with a few extra years that he probably won't even serve.

But given that even Sotomayer and Kagan sided with Kavanaugh and Roberts on this, I guess I'm in the minority on this. (Only Ginsburg and Gorsuch disented)

qazplm135

(7,447 posts)

4. that's the problem with the Bill of Rights in its origin

Reply to fescuerescue (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 17, 2019, 12:47 PM

Jun 2019

it was designed not as a protection of individual rights, but to protect the states from the federal government.

that's why dual sovereignty existed from the beginning, and that's why states could and did violate the bill of rights up until selective incorporation came along.

thesquanderer

(11,990 posts)

6. I wonder what Ginsburg and Gorsuch would have suggested as a more appropriate remedy, if anything.

Reply to fescuerescue (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 17, 2019, 12:59 PM

Jun 2019

The article says that, if decided the other way, the government might not be able to prosecute someone of something for which he was acquitted in another country... and I'm not sure that's a good idea, either.

sarabelle

(453 posts)

7. Who were the two? And this is a double edged ruling. Trump cannot be pardoned for State Crimes but

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2019, 01:01 PM

Jun 2019

what happens with civil and voting rights issues now?

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)

9. Gorsuch and Ginsburg dissented

Reply to sarabelle (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 17, 2019, 02:24 PM

Jun 2019

While Kagan and Sotomayer joined with Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Breyer.

pecosbob

(7,541 posts)

8. Wasn't ever very likely the Court would rule to limit it's ability to lock people up

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2019, 01:38 PM

Jun 2019

Being perfectly real for a moment. Firearm restrictions is one of the primary tools states as well as the DOJ use to control repeat offenders. Got to keep the criminal justice system fed...

Reply to this discussion