Double Jeopardy and Federal Criminal Cases

Double Jeopardy and Federal Criminal Cases: What You Need to Know

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This clause, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits prosecution of the same offense after an acquittal or conviction as well as multiple punishments for the same offense. However, the intricacies of double jeopardy law can be complex, especially when state and federal charges are involved. This article will provide an overview of key aspects of double jeopardy and how they apply in federal criminal cases.

Implications for Federal Criminal Trials

The dual sovereignty doctrine has important implications for federal criminal trials, even if a defendant has already been tried in state court.

For one, acquittal in state court does not bar federal prosecution. Since federal and state governments are considered separate sovereigns, an acquittal in one does not constitute double jeopardy in the other.

For example, in 2019, a Minnesota state court acquitted former police officer Derek Chauvin of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter charges for the death of George Floyd. He was later indicted on federal civil rights charges for the same incident by the U.S. Department of Justice. The federal charges were not considered double jeopardy due to the separate sovereigns exception.

However, a conviction in state court can prevent the same prosecution in federal court and vice versa under the Petite policy. This internal policy of the DOJ discourages federal prosecution following a state conviction for the same act unless there is a compelling federal interest.

The Petite policy is not constitutionally mandated but rather an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The DOJ uses it to avoid the perception of abuse and unfairness that would result from dual prosecution. But the department can authorize exceptions when justified by the circumstances.

Sentencing Considerations

Another nuance relates to sentencing if a defendant is convicted of similar state and federal charges concerning the same criminal act. The dual sovereignty doctrine allows for prosecutions by separate sovereigns but does not allow for multiple punishments for the “same offense.”

Federal courts use various analyses to determine whether state and federal offenses constitute the “same offense” for sentencing purposes. This includes considering:

• Whether the statutory elements of the state and federal crimes are the same
• Whether the charges rely on the same underlying facts
• Whether the sentencing court adjusted the sentence to account for penalties already imposed

If a court determines the offenses are considered the same, the sentence for one charge may be adjusted to avoid double punishment. For example, in United States v. Koonce, the defendant received a nine-year state sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. When sentenced on a federal charge for the same possession, the court imposed a concurrent nine-year federal sentence.

Overall, while a defendant can be tried by both state and federal courts, the sentencing must account for any prior state punishment to avoid unconstitutional double punishment.

Procedural Bars

Certain procedural requirements can also prevent successive federal prosecution following state charges:

• The statute of limitations may have expired on the federal charges.
• Pre-indictment delay may violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment due process rights if the defense is greatly prejudiced by the delay between state and federal trials.
• Evidence obtained illegally by state officials may be suppressed in the federal prosecution under the exclusionary rule if there was deliberate misconduct or the two prosecutions are deemed to be collusive.

Procedural bars like these can halt federal prosecution even when double jeopardy itself does not strictly apply due to the dual sovereignty doctrine.

Double Jeopardy vs. Civil Actions

It is also important to note that double jeopardy only applies to multiple criminal prosecutions, not civil cases. This means an individual can face both criminal charges and civil penalties for the same offense.

For example, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges but later found liable for wrongful death in the civil case. The civil judgment did not constitute double jeopardy since it was a civil matter rather than a criminal retrial.

The differing burdens of proof in civil and criminal cases – preponderance of evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt – as well as other procedural differences, allow for civil consequences even after acquittal on criminal charges.

That said, one jurisdiction’s prosecuting authority cannot bring a civil action after failing to win a criminal conviction for the same offense. For instance, a city could not pursue civil forfeiture of property after failing to convict the owner of a criminal charge involving that property.

Key Takeaways

In summary, here are some key points to understand regarding double jeopardy and federal criminal cases:

• The dual sovereignty doctrine allows federal prosecution after state charges or vice versa as they are separate sovereigns.
• An acquittal or conviction in one sovereign’s court does not bar prosecution in the other, though the Petite policy limits federal re-prosecution after state conviction.
• Sentencing takes into account prior punishments by the other jurisdiction to avoid unconstitutional multiple punishments.
• Procedural bars like statutes of limitation, pre-indictment delay, and exclusionary rules can sometimes prevent federal re-prosecution when double jeopardy does not.
• Double jeopardy does not prevent civil cases related to the same criminal act.
• One jurisdiction cannot pursue a civil case after failing to convict criminally for the same offense.

Navigating these nuances requires skilled criminal defense attorneys, especially for federal cases preceded by state charges. The fundamental right against double jeopardy remains intact, but its practical application across dual court systems contains many complexities.