From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:26:33 EDT

In article <1992Aug12.204722.13549@asuvax.eas.asu.edu> 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.


>> What mechanism of law currently allows the federal justice department
>> to *prohibit* a local (state) prosecution?
>>
>> In the absence of any such mechanism, you can hardly suggest that federal
>> authorities have the option to prosecute civil rights charges "in the first
>> place."
>
>     Prohibit?  Why Mr. Greenfield, no wonder you
>don't see anything wrong with double jeopardy:
>you're so authoritatively minded!
>
>     But seriously, no one need "prohibit" anything.
>The federal and local authorities could easily meet
>beforehand and decide upon which strategy and court
>would most likely produce a conviction.  I don't
>know and don't particularly care what happens if
>they can't agree.  It's their problem to work out,
>not the defendant's.

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

The laws were passed to prevent local authorities from failing
(presumably purposefully, though it could have been just out
disinterest or lack of concern) to *seriously* prosecute certain
cases.

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.

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.


Of course, this is simply to demonstrate a general problem with what
you are suggesting.  Unless you believe that the LA prosecutors,
either by intent or negligence, "purposefully" lost the Rodney King-
related trials, it is not applicable to the case at hand.


>     What I maintain they *can't* do is wait and
>see how the locals do, and if they get no success,
>well heck, just give it another whirl in federal
>court.

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.

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.


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.  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.

You will need to either decry the former case to be a violation of "double-
jeopardy" rights, or find some principled distinction between having one
prosecutor handle multiple charges stemming from a single action, and having
two different prosecutors handle multiple charges stemming from a single
action--that is, if you wish to be at all consistent.


>     Not if the Constitution has any meaning, that
>is.

Frankly, I have not made up my mind as to whether or not I *believe* that
these situations represent a violation of the principle of a prohibiton
against double-jeopardy (let alone to start announcing the gospel about what
the Constitution *really* means).

And I do not pretend that the matter is simple or obvious.

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.


-- 
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?"
Newsgroups: misc.legal