From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:50:03 GMT
Organization: misc.legal

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
> 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.

     Well I felt that the average reader would
interpret it as a direct quote, and even if they
didn't I don't think your expression was an
accurate description of my position anyway.

> 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.

     No.  What you describe is more similar to
the Al Capone case, where the government "got
back at" Capone by convicting him of unrelated
charges.  Of course, that wasn't double jeopardy
because income tax evasion was a separate act
from what he was tried for originally (and not
merely a separate charge for the exact same act
like in the Rodney King case).

     My complaint is that the officers have
already been acquitted of their offense and
that the Constitution protects them from
having to stand trial for their alleged crime
a second time.  (Note, of course, that my use
of the term "alleged" has nothing to do with
my personal feelings regarding their guilt.)

> >     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).

     Well perhaps not so obviously, I feel that
violates the Constitution as well.  As do a lot
of other things, asset forfeiture without due
process for one.

> >     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?

     Well of course I don't, because the way
the courts currently interpret the law, what's
happening to the Rodney King defendants is not
considered double jeopardy.

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

     Other than my suggestion that state and local
authorities cooperate to determine the best strategy
and venue for a conviction, no.  But as I stated
before, I don't think it's the defendant's problem
if for some reason the authorities cannot agree;
he or she should still be protected against double
jeopardy.

> 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.

     Yes.  I still believe a person should only
have to stand trial once for a single incident.

> 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.

     I've done that to some extent in this article.
If there are parts of my position still not clear,
I'll be happy to answer a more specific question.

> >> 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.

     I fail to see why.  The Constitution says
quite simply that no person shall be subject to
trial more than once for the same offense.  There's
nothing in there about exceptions for renaming the
charge or trying in another jurisdiction.

> 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...

     Well I still see the Constitutional issue as
clearcut.  The other issue (just what *should* we
do about injustices like the King acquittal and
the numerous acquittals of racists in the South
during the Civil Rights struggle) is much more
complex; but I think there's got to be a better
solution than instituting double jeopardy.

--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.censorship