From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: misc.legal
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:38:19 GMT

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
> >> >     No, Dave, it is not constitutional.  I believe
> >> >what you mean to say is that it has been *ruled*
> >> >constitutional.
> >> Read:  It doesn't meet *my* interpretation of the Constitution.
> >     Or anyone else's who can read plain English
> >without rationalizing to suit expedient purposes.
> 
> Read: If you don't agree with *my* interpretation then you are either
>       a fool or a knave.

     Well, if you insist, Mr. Greenfield.

> Well, gee.  I guess you have absolutely *NO* understanding of
> why the relevant federal laws were passed in the first place.

     That does not logically follow, Mr. Greenfield.
But of course that's no doubt why you used the word
"guess."

> If you suggest that federal authorities may not prohibit the local
> authorities from prosecuting a case (so that federal authorties,
> themselves may prosecute a related case), *and* you suggest that
> they cannot, legally, prosecute a case after the local authorities
> have prosecuted a related case, then you have created a huge loophole.

     No Mr. Greenfield, the Constitution created
the loophole, not I.

> And that loophole effectively destroys the federal authorities' abiltity
> to address the situation that prompted this type of legislation in
> the first place.  Any local authorities who want to protect certain
> individuals from punishment could simply run a sham trial before
> the federal authorities have a chance to prosecute.  Doing so would
> permanently protect the individuals from federal prosecution.

     That is true.  If you feel this happens
or could happen often enough to merit amending
the Constitution to rectify the problem, perhaps
you should pursue that course of action.

> The fact of the matter is that defendants (in drug-related crimes, especially)
> are at times tried in federal court even after they have been *convicted* of
> related charges at the local level--so you really can't claim that this
> technique is used exclusively to try and "get back at" (as you describe it)
> acquitted defendants.

     First of all, where do you get off quoting
me as saying this technique is used exclusively
by prosecutors to try to "get back at" acquitted
defendants?  If you want to actually quote me
then do so, Mr. Greenfield.  Don't just make
quotes up.

     Secondly, if what you claim is true, just
what in hell is your point?  You describe something
that even more heinously violates the Constitution.
Just what is that supposed to prove?
     
> And in general, prosecutors (whether they be federal or local) have a
> reasonable right to devote limited resources to various cases based on their
> evaluation of the relative importance of prosecuting various cases.
> 
> Defendants who have already been convicted of various crimes become of much
> less interest, from the standpoint of "protecting public interests," when
> they are already serving a lengthy sentence.
> 
> It is therefore quite natural that prosecutors give highest priority to
> cases involving individuals who are not yet serving any time.
> 
> But this is not special to "related" crimes (i.e., those stemming from the
> same incident).  This is why prosecutors may not bother to prosecute small
> offenses when they already have someone on more severe offenses.  It is
> also why prosecutors in one state (or one jurisdiction) may not bother
> to extradite and try a defendant currently serving a lengthy prison term
> in another.

     Evidently the preceding four paragraphs
were a speech of some sort.  I fail to see
how they address the point, to wit whether
or not double jeopardy is unconstitutional.

> Furthermore, you need to be far more general in your sweep of criticism.
> 
> Why is it acceptable for an individual to be charged with an array of
> different crimes for what is, on the surface a single crime.  The law seems
> to recognize that in the process of a single criminal act (the term act used
> very broadly) an individual may break numerous different laws.
> 
> I have yet to hear you argue that this represents "double-jeopardy" in
> violation of the constitution.

     That's because it doesn't.

> Yet the only difference between this and
> having both local and federal authorites prosecuting related crimes is
> that in one case, a single prosecutor (office) is handling the multiple
> charges, while in the other case, two different prosecutors (offices)
> are handling the multiple charges.

     No, that is not the only difference.
The important difference (which you fail to
see) is that the charges are all presented
and tried at once in a single trial.  I have
no Constitutional objections to that.  If the
prosecutors had a full trial on whatever
charges they chose to press and lost, and then
turned around and dreampt up new charges for
the exact same act after the defendant had
already been acquitted, then I would have
objections.

> The only apparent reason for you to consider the legal status of
> this situation to be so simple as to be obvious (to anyone who can
> read!!) is that you have failed to seriously examine and consider
> the implications of the various positions.

     No.  You're right in that the question of
whether the way things are handled presently
is best or not is indeed complicated; however,
what the Constitution says is quite simple and
clearcut.  And as I stated several paragraphs
above, if we want things to be as they are in
fact today then we should amend the Constitution
to that effect.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban