Criminal Law & Procedure Flashcards
- The issue is whether the State B hate crime prosecution is barred by the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause based on the conviction and sentencing from the City’s criminal charge
The double jeopardy clause prohibits the trying of a criminal defendant for the same offense. Jeopardy attaches in a bench trial when the first witness is sworn in. Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial
when the jury is empaneled and sworn in. Thus, double jeopardy has attached in the City criminal case.
The double jeopardy clause does not apply to separate sovereigns; separate sovereigns can try a criminal defendant for violations of a crime arising from the same conduct. Furthermore, a crime is the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes if each crime requires a separate element that is missing from the other element.
Application
Here, City and State B are separate sovereigns; City is a city within state A and thus is only shares sovereignty with State A. Thus, the double jeopardy clause does not bar the prosecution of the State B hate-crime. Note that the State B hate crime is not a separate offense from the City criminal charge; indeed they are substantially identical. Each prohibits any person from assaulting another person based on their religious expression. However, City and State B are separate sovereigns, so the double jeopardy clause does not bar prosecution.
- The issue is whether the federal hate-crime prosecution is barred by the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause based on the conviction and sentencing from the City’s criminal charge.
The double jeopardy clause prohibits the trying of a criminal defendant for the same offense. Jeopardy attaches in a
bench trial when the first witness is sworn in. Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in. Thus, jeopardy has attached in the City criminal case.
The double jeopardy clause does not apply to separate sovereigns; separate sovereigns can try a criminal defendant for violations of a crime arising from the same conduct. Furthermore, a crime is the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes if each crime requires a separate element that is missing from the other element.
Here, City and the federal government are separate sovereigns; separate sovereigns can try a criminal defendant for violations of the same crime arising from the same conduct. City is only the same sovereign as State A. Thus, the federal government can prosecute based on the federal offense without violating the double jeopardy.
- The issue is whether State A and City are separate sovereigns. See above for the definition of double jeopardy clause.
The double jeopardy clause does not apply to separate sovereigns. The double jeopardy clause only applies to the same offense. An offense is not the same offense as another if each offense has
an element that the other does not include.
A city is not a separate sovereign as the state in which it is located. Thus, City and State A are not separate sovereigns for purposes of double jeopardy. Furthermore, the crimes are not separate offenses for double jeopardy purposes. While the State A hate crime charge includes an additional element-that injury is caused to the victim, a separate element is not found in the City Criminal Charge. Therefore, because State A and City are not separate sovereigns and because the offenses are not separate, the double jeopardy clause will bar the prosecution of the State A hate-crime.
- The issue is whether the State A assault statute and the city criminal charge are separate offenses for purposes of the double jeopardy clause
The double jeopardy clause does not apply to separate sovereigns. The double jeopardy clause only applies to the same offense. An offense is not the same offense as another if each offense has an element that the other does not include. This is known as the Blockburger test.
As discussed above, a city is not a separate sovereign as the state in which it is located. Thus, City and State A are not separate sovereigns for purposes of double jeopardy. However, the State A assault statute and the City Criminal Charge are separate offenses for double jeopardy purposes. The state A assault charge requires that the defendant intend to cause injury to another; this is not required by the City hate-crime offense. Furthermore, the City hate crime
offense requires that the assault be motivated by the other person’s religious expression. This is not required by the State A assault statute. Thus, the offenses are separate for purposes of the double jeopardy clause and the State A assault prosecution is not barred by the United State Constitution.
