Ginsburg and Gorsuch Dissent on Double Jeopardy

[Elderberry]

Liberty Nation By: Scott D. Cosenza, Esq. June 18, 2019

Standing accused again and again for the same crime is a hallmark of tyrannical power recognized as far back as the ancient Greeks. They enacted a ban on the practice, which was later adopted by the Romans. Our own Fifth Amendment provides the same protection. If governments can simply try a defendant over and over again until they get the result they desire (conviction), what does the right to a trial mean? While all the Supreme Court justices agree on this, they disagree about its implications under our state and federal governments.

Monday, the Court ruled 7-2 that state and federal prosecutions for the same acts do not violate the double jeopardy prohibition.  Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg, ideological bookends on the court, both issued powerful dissents.
Felon With a Firearm

Terrence Gamble was riding dirty in Alabama and got busted for carrying a gun after his car was searched at a traffic stop.  Since he was previously convicted of second-degree robbery, his possession of the handgun violated an Alabama law providing that no one convicted of “a crime of violence” “shall own a firearm or have one in his or her possession.”  He was charged by the state and pleaded guilty. His sentence meant he would likely only serve one year in prison.

As Justice Ginsburg wrote:

    “Apparently regarding Alabama’s sentence as too lenient, federal prosecutors pursued a parallel charge, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of federal law. Gamble again pleaded guilty and received nearly three more years in prison.”

He challenged the federal conviction arguing the prosecution itself was prohibited by the Fifth Amendment guarantee that “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence* to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

There are only three federal crimes listed in the constitution, and being a felon in possession of a firearm is not one of them**.  The growth of federal criminal law has been explosive, but also relatively recent.  This started about a hundred years ago with Prohibition, and that’s when the precedent that state and federal prosecutions for the same acts were okay.  The landmark Lanza case from 1922 held that “an 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.” And that the Fifth Amendment “applies only to proceedings by the federal government.”

Since then, the Court has expanded the protections of the Bill of Rights in many areas through incorporation.  When the Bill of Rights was ratified, it was in recognition of rights held against the federal government, and it guaranteed they would not be violated at that level. These enumerated rights were not protections against state governments or their creations (counties, cities, etc.).  Does that change the double jeopardy analysis?  Not according to the majority.
Offence Means No Trouble With Dual Prosecutions

The Fifth Amendment reads, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” That word “offence” is the cause of all the trouble.  The majority says an offence is not an act – such as carrying a firearm – but a transgression against a sovereign.  Since our system is one of dual-sovereignty, the majority says there is no problem with the multiple prosecutions because any violation of a sovereign’s laws may be punished.

More:https://www.libertynation.com/ginsburg-and-gorsuch-dissent-on-double-jeopardy/

[Elderberry]

Rules and Precedent: Two Forms of Common Law in Gamble v. United States

   SLS Blog  June 18, 2019 By Bernadette Meyler   

https://law.stanford.edu/2019/06/18/rules-and-precedent-two-forms-of-common-law-in-gamble-v-united-states/

The common law plays an outsized role in the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions by the states and the federal government. The petitioner in Gamble v. United States relied on English common law to gloss the original meaning of the Clause and claimed that seventeenth- and eighteenth-century cases and treatises support the notion that, at the time of the Founding, the common law prohibited trying an individual for an offense when another sovereign country had already done so. Justice Alito, writing for the seven-member majority, rejected this argument; he instead reaffirmed the line of Supreme Court cases holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause permits both the federal government and the states to prosecute a defendant because they are separate sovereigns and, therefore, an “offense” against one is not the same as an “offense” against the other. In doing so, he relied on the Supreme Court’s own common law—its prior precedents interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Contending that “something more than ‘ambiguous historical evidence’ is required before we will ‘flatly overrule a number of major decisions of this Court,’” Justice Alito concluded that Gamble failed to adduce a historical basis of a more than “middling” sort for his claim (Gamble, 587 U.S. ___, 11-12 [2019]). In the face of seemingly inconclusive history, the majority in Gamble thus decided to stick with precedent instead of original meaning.

More at link

[240B]

I wish her no ill will, but I am amazed, astounded really, that she is still alive.
She has to be related to Rasputin somehow. Either that or she is some kind of witch.
No normal person could survive her age combined with all that she has been through.