From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:07:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>In article <PA146008.243.714182108@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug18.015503.3560@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> 
>>>	Double jeopardy is being tried in the same court for the same crime
>>>(with the same evidence) twice.
>>>
>>      The Constitution does not make this distinction.  It says simply
>> that noone will be twice put in jeapardy of life and limb for the same
>> offense.   Just because somebody comes up with new evidence after an
>> acquital does not mean you have to have another trial.  Nor can you just
>> switch jurisdictions and try again.
>
>	You're not "switching jurisdictions".  There are two separate court
>systems, and two separate law systems.
>
>	If you go on an interstate killing spree, is it double jeopardy to be
>tried for murder in more than one state?  I think we've made the case for
>separate court systems.

     If two different murders are commited in two different states, then
you are tried for the first murder in the state it was commited in,
then the second murder in the state it was commited in.  You are not tried
for *both* murders in *both* states.

>	New evidence?  What if it is in the defendant's favor?  And of course
>we can't have double standards.  So new evidence can mean a new trial.

     Yes, in the *defendent's* favor.  Your fifth amendment rights are yours
to hold or to waive as you see fit.  If someone produces new evidence you
may waive your right and get a new trial.  What you're suggesting is
that the *government* get to decide to have a new trial at the expense
of the *defendent's* rights.

>>>	Federal courts and state courts are not the same court system.  A
>>>suspect can be tried in both courts for the same act (e.g. bank robbery) and it
>>>doesn't violate the double jeopardy standard.
>> 
>>      Bank Robbery is a state crime, and the federal government does not have
>> the jurisdiction to try those cases.
>
>	Rob a federal bank if you don't think so.  The Feds made it a federal
>crime back in the 70s.

     The mess the feds have made of banking has produced a spider-web of
contradictions.  Depending on which particular nonsense you are referring
to they may very well have been out of line.  But we've been fighting
over the feds authority in banking for two hundred years now.

>>>	Anyone not understanding that should do a little reading before
>>>proceeding further.
>> 
>>      Where, exactly, did the fifth amendment make this distinction between
>> jurisdictions?
>
>	Interpretations.

     The Constitution has an amendment process.  Simply interpreteting the
document to make it say what you want to say defeats the whole purpose
of writing your government down.
     It spells it out clearly that no person will be "twice put in jeapardy
of life and limb," for the same offense.  It's black and white and crystal
clear.  If you want it changed, propose an amendment.  If you just
want to interpret it into something else than don't even bother with
justifying it with the Constitution, because you've just made that
document meaningless.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================