WASHINGTON DC, December 10 - The United States Supreme Court accepted to hear a new case, Gamble v. United States. Terrence Gamble is a convicted felon in Alabama. He was pulled over because of a broken taillight. Once the police officer sensed there was marijuana in the car, he had a reason to get in and search Gamble’s car legally. The officer was able to find a firearm, meaning that Gamble broke both Alabama state law and US federal law. Both the federal and state law prohibits any convicted felon from possessing a firearm. This meant that Gamble was subjected to the conviction of two separate sovereigns, the US and the state of Alabama. Typically, Gamble would be protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause in the 5th Amendment which bars a second prosecution for the same offense. Although, in a precedent made by the Supreme Court Case Abbate v. United States, there is an exception to the double jeopardy rule; this execution lies in the case where the two prosecutors are “separate sovereigns” like the United States and Alabama. Therefore, if a decision were made in line with this precedent, Gamble would be tried for the same crime twice, both on the state and federal level. Luckily for him, however, it seems like the Court is willing to revisit the “separate sovereigns” exception.
1. Should the Court overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment?
2. In what cases has the “separate sovereigns” rule benefitted the outcome of a trial?
3. The outcome of this case may have a direct implication on how Trump is prosecuted, if he ever is, by both state and federal parties. Will this case morph into a political issue because of it?
1) I think the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause because it seems like a really common way for people to get tried for a crime twice. Therefore, I feel like that it is not a very fair way to punish people even though they were doing something illegal in two separate sovereigns. So, I feel like the court should interpret the amendment differently.
ReplyDelete2) The separate sovereigns rule would benefit the outcome of a trial if they were tried again and they were found innocent by the federal court or the state court. Then I feel like they should be able to appeal and make a case for innocence in the other court. Therefore, they may be able to be tried twice and recieve a lighter or no sentence.
3) The outcome of this case could be related to the prosecution of Trump, if it happens, because it could involve multiple sovereigns. Therefore, it may involve into a political issue because people tend to take sides of politics. For instance, the Republicans will probably really support getting rid of the separate sovereigns and the Democrats will probably be for the separate sovereigns because Trump is a Republican.
Yes, the Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause, as it completely goes against the 5th amendment and forces some accused to go to trial multiple times for a single case. It also creates more confusion in the judicial system. Which punishment does the accused receive? The harsher decision, lighter decision, or a combination of the two?
ReplyDeleteThe “separate sovereigns” rule could potentially help the accused receive a lighter sentence the outcome of a trial if one court decided they were innocent or charged them for a lesser crime.
This case could morph into a political issue to help or hurt President Trump; however, I think the more significant judicial question for Trump is how does a President get charged with a crime?
1. the court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment because it is unfair and unconstitutional to charge someone for the same crime twice, even if it breaks both federal and state laws.
ReplyDelete2. “separate sovereigns” can be beneficial if the accused is not charged with a harsh enough sentence time/ punishment. In some cases, some people receive too light of a punishment for their crimes.
3. Yes, the case can morph into a political issue because it does involve the president but in this case, I do not think that Trump will have a large impact on the ruling of this case.
1. The court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception in my opinion. Both the federal and local laws were designed to have sufficient punishment for an individual by themselves, so doubling up on punishment is not fair to the defendant. This is at the essence of what the 5th amendment was trying to protect in this case.
ReplyDelete2. The separate sovereigns rule could prove useful, depending on the situation and whether the person was arrested by a federal or state official, if only one of the two ways of punishing the person was possible or at least easier. It gives more people jurisdiction.
3. It is very possible for this to become a political issue. If it is possible to try someone in both courts, this benefits the Democrats as they can try to charge Trump twice. Thus, people are likely to take stances on the case based on their political preference or opinions on Trump.
Nicolas Nejadnik
ReplyDeleteSeeing as the exception is a pretty common scenario where both Federal and State law render a certain act illegal, yes it should be overruled. In fact, the overlap between Federal and State law is so obvious that it was most likely a scenario that the 5th amendment was designed to deal with. Simply because they are separate does not change the applicability of the of the 5th. The exception also seems very easy to exploit when convenient.
This is issue is already of political significance, and its importance in a potential Trump trial would likely bring it to the front of political conversation.
1. Yes, I believe the courts should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment because it clearly violates the 5th Amendment. The federal and state punishments should not add up because it's clearly unfair and contradicts the amendment which applies to both.
ReplyDelete2. They could appeal in the cases and possibly receive a lighter sentence.
3. Yes, this is a political issue that will further polarize the sides.