Opinion ID: 773865
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the double jeopardy clause and the dual sovereignty exception

Text: 7 The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that [n]o person shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. U.S. Const. amend. V. This constitutional guarantee provides three forms of protection: It prohibits a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and multiple punishments for the same offense. Dep't of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 769 n.1 (1994). 8 The Double Jeopardy Clause, however, contains a significant exception. Multiple prosecutions are permissible when they are carried out by separate sovereigns. The rationale for this principle rests with our traditional conception of what constitutes a crime. At common law, a crime was defined as an offense against the sovereignty of the government. Thus, a single act that violates the laws of two sovereigns constitutes two separate crimes. As a result, successive prosecutions by multiple sovereigns for that single act do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 88 (1985). 9 Our task, then, is to determine whether the two entities that prosecuted Enas are separate sovereigns for purposes of the prosecution. In order to do so, we must identifythe ultimate source of the power under which the respective prosecutions were undertaken. Wheeler, 435 U.S. at 320; accord Heath, 474 U.S. at 88. In certain contexts, this analysis is fairly simple. For instance, it is clearly established that state and federal governments each prosecute pursuant to their own sovereign power. Thus, multiple prosecutions among these entities are permissible. A federal prosecution may follow a state prosecution for the same acts. United States v. Lanza , 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922) ([A]n act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each.). Likewise, one state may prosecute crimes already punished by another. Heath, 474 U.S. at 89. By contrast, the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits successive prosecutions by federal and territorial governments, because the territorial and federal laws and the courts, whether exercising federal or local jurisdiction, are creations emanating from the same sovereignty. Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P.R.), Ltd., 302 U.S. 253, 264 (1937). 10 This inquiry into the source of the prosecuting power becomes somewhat more complicated in the context that confronts us here--namely, the nature and scope of tribal sovereign power. We turn now to that subject. 11