From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 01:00:19 EDT

In article <1992Aug17.203819.21958@asuvax.eas.asu.edu> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
>
>> 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.

My apologies if you (or anybody else) misread this.  Quotes are *not*
always used to represent the literal duplication of statements.  In this
case, I used quotes to encapsulate an idiomatic expression.  Indeed, I
felt, and do feel, that the essence of your complaint was that the current
system allows the government to "get back at" defendants who have been
acquitted on other charges.


>     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?

It is not intended to *prove* anything.  It is merely intended to question
the logical implications of the position you put forth--as in, how does
your argumnet stand up if the federal laws are applied *both* to convicted
and acquitted defendants (which it, in fact, is).
     

>     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.

They were intended to demonstrate that the features of the federal prosecutions
about which you and other have complained are not limited solely to joint
federal and state jurisdiction cases, nor are they limited solely to cases
in which a defendant has already been tried once (and perhaps, acquitted)
on related charges.


>> 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.

Well, this is an interesting distinction.  Do you have any court
precedents to cite in support of your suggestion that this is
indeed the recognized distinction between double-jeopardy and the
legal prosecution of mulitple charges?

Can you resolve the fact that federal and state charges can *not* be
tried at a single trial?

Would it still be double-jeopardy if the both federal and state prosecutors
filed charges (or got indictments) prior to any trial?  Then you couldn't
argue that the prosecutors just went out and pulled some new charges out of
a hat.

In essence, your argument still appears to me to be one based around
evaluation of whether the government is trying to "get back at" an
acquitted defendant.  As such, I would like to know exactly where you
do see distinctions.


>> 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.

Well, now you're just claiming (again) that the relationship between
these situations and double-jeopardy is crystal clear.  I strongly disagree.

As I stated in my last post--you may be right.  Some elements of your
argument appeal to me.  However, I hardly think that the question is so
crystal clear that it is obvious that you are correct.

I also see reasonable points in the opposing arguments.  Since no one else
had done it, I decided to assume the devil's advocate role--which I am
continuing here...


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16170 talk.politics.animals:7274