DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-107 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. BILLY JO LARA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEODORE B. OLSON Solicitor General Counsel of Record CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY Acting Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL R. DREEBEN Deputy Solicitor General BARBARA MCDOWELL Assistant to the Solicitor General RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN Attorney Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED In Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), this Court held that Indian Tribes had lost their inherent sovereign power to prosecute members of other Tribes for of- fenses committed on their reservations. Congress re- sponded to the Court’s decision by amending the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, to “recognize[] and affirm[]” the “inherent power” of Tribes to “exer- cise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians.” The ques- tion presented is: Whether Section 1301, as amended, validly restores the Tribes’ sovereign power to prosecute members of other Tribes (rather than delegates federal prosecuto- rial power to the Tribes), such that a federal prosecu- tion following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved ................... 2 Reasons for granting the petition................................................ 9 A. The court of appeals erred in holding that Congress cannot remove impediments to the exercise of tribal sovereign powers ......................... 10 B. The court of appeals erred in rewriting the ICRA amendment as a delegation of federal prosecutorial power .................................................... 16 C. Two circuits with extensive Indian country are in square conflict on the validity of the ICRA amendment as a restoration of tribal sovereign authority .................................................... 18 D. The question presented in this case has significant ramifications for law enforcement in Indian country ......................................................... 20 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 24 Appendix A ..................................................................................... 1a Appendix B ..................................................................................... 23a Appendix C ..................................................................................... 35a Appendix D ..................................................................................... 44a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) ..................... 6 California v. Mesa, 813 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1987), aff ’d, 489 U.S. 121 (1989) ...................................................... 18 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831) ........................................................................................ 14 Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) ....... 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985) ............................... 3, 10 Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728 (1984) ........................... 17 Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 123 S. Ct. 2142 (2003) ........................................................................................ 16 Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982) ........................................................................................ 15 Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) ........................ 3 Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) ................ 14, 15 Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) ............................ 14 Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993) ......................... 15 Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) ................................. 14, 15 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) ....................................................................... 3, 12, 13-14, 15 Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946) ........................................................................................ 16 Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) ................ 22 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) ........................................................................................ 14 South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) .............. 15 United States v. Enas, 255 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1115 (2002) (en banc) ........................................................................ 2, 9, 18, 20 United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975) ................. 14, 15 United States v. Phelps, 168 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 1999) ......................................................................................... 17 United States v. Weaselhead, 156 F.3d 818, reh’g granted and opinion vacated, 165 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 829 (1999) ............................. 6, 18 United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) .................. 3, 5, 10, 11, 23 Statutes: U.S. Const.: Art. I, § 8, Cl. 3 (Commerce Clause) .................................. 16 Amend. V (Double Jeopardy Clause) .......................... passim V Statutes: Page Act of Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-511, Title VIII, § 8077, 104 Stat. 1892-1893 (25 U.S.C. 1301(2) and (4)) ............................................................................................. 4 Act of Oct. 28, 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-137, 105 Stat. 646 ..... 4 McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ................. 16 18 U.S.C. 111(a) ........................................................................ 22 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1) ................................................................... 5, 6 18 U.S.C. 111(b) ........................................................................ 22 18 U.S.C. 113(a) ........................................................................ 18 18 U.S.C. 1161 ........................................................................... 15 18 U.S.C. 1162 ........................................................................... 21 28 U.S.C. 1291 ........................................................................... 6 28 U.S.C. 1360 ........................................................................... 21 Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301 et seq. ........................................................................................ 2 25 U.S.C. 1301(2) ............................................. 2, 4, 9, 12, 16 25 U.S.C. 1301(4) .............................................................. 4 25 U.S.C. 1302 ................................................................... 2, 17 25 U.S.C. 1302(7) .............................................................. 22 25 U.S.C. 1303 ................................................................... 2 Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 1153 ............. 3, 4, 10-11, 18 Miscellaneous: H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 261, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991) ........................................................................................ 13 H.R. Rep. No. 61, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991) ..... 13, 17, 20-21, 22 S. Rep. No. 168, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991) ............ 13, 20, 21 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-107 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. BILLY JO LARA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States of America, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the en banc court of appeals (App., in- fra, 1a-22a) is reported at 324 F.3d 635. The vacated panel opinion (App., infra, 23a-34a) is reported at 294 F.3d 1004. The opinion of the district court (App., in- fra, 35a-43a) is unreported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on March 24, 2003. On June 13, 2003, Justice Thomas ex- tended the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including July 22, 2003. The juris- diction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). (1) 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 1. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases aris- ing in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public dan- ger; nor shall any person be subject for the same of- fence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a wit- ness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 2. Sections 1301 through 1303 of Title 25 of the United States Code are reproduced at App., infra, 44a- 46a. STATEMENT In Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), this Court held that Indian Tribes no longer possessed the inherent authority
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
    Case 3:13-cr-00731-DRD-MEL Document 187 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff v. Criminal No. 13-731 (DRD) William Rosado-Cancel (1) Juan Antonio Rosario-Cintron (2) Defendants OPINION & ORDER Defendants William Rosado-Cancel1 and Juan Antonio Rosario-Cintrón (“Defendants”) move the Court to dismiss the two-count indictment on double jeopardy and/or issue preclusion grounds in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark Sanchez Valle decision. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016). However, it is a “fundamental principle that an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy.” Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 393 (1975). Until now, despite being charged in commonwealth court, Defendants have yet to suffer jeopardy. Defendants’ issue preclusion argument also falters for several reasons: (1) jeopardy did not attach to the commonwealth pretrial proceedings, (2) the argument was untimely, and/or (3) there was no privity between the federal and Puerto Rico prosecutors. For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Marcos E. López’s reasoning and DENIES each Defendant’s motion to dismiss.2 1 The Court notes that this defendant has already pled guilty in this case. See Docket No. 142. 2 Both defendants use the same arguments, challenge the same charges, and are part of the same nucleus of facts. As such, the Court addresses both motions jointly in the instant opinion and order. Case 3:13-cr-00731-DRD-MEL Document 187 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 15 I.
    [Show full text]
  • 15-108 Puerto Rico V. Sanchez Valle (06/09/2016)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO v. SANCHEZ VALLE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO No. 15–108. Argued January 13, 2016—Decided June 9, 2016 Respondents Luis Sánchez Valle and Jaime Gómez Vázquez each sold a gun to an undercover police officer. Puerto Rican prosecutors indict­ ed them for illegally selling firearms in violation of the Puerto Rico Arms Act of 2000. While those charges were pending, federal grand juries also indicted them, based on the same transactions, for viola­ tions of analogous U. S. gun trafficking statutes. Both defendants pleaded guilty to the federal charges and moved to dismiss the pend­ ing Commonwealth charges on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court in each case dismissed the charges, rejecting prosecutors’ ar­ guments that Puerto Rico and the United States are separate sover­ eigns for double jeopardy purposes and so could bring successive prosecutions against each defendant. The Puerto Rico Court of Ap­ peals consolidated the cases and reversed. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico granted review and held, in line with the trial court, that Puerto Rico’s gun sale prosecutions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
    [Show full text]
  • State of West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
    STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED State of West Virginia, October 30, 2014 released at 3:00 p.m. Plaintiff Below, Respondent RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA vs) No. 13-1122 (Cabell County 09-F-023) Robert Frazier, Defendant Below, Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Robert Frazier, by counsel, Crystal L. Walden, appeals the October 15, 2013, Order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County sentencing him to serve forty years in the penitentiary following his second degree murder conviction. The State, by counsel, Julie A. Warren, Assistant Attorney General, filed a response. This Court has considered the parties’ briefs, oral arguments, and the appendix record on appeal. We find no substantial question of law and a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. For the reasons expressed below, the decision of the trial court is affirmed, in part, and vacated, in part. Factual and Procedural History On August 25, 2008, petitioner shot his girlfriend, fifty-three-year-old Kathy Smith, in the head with a 12 gauge shotgun following a domestic dispute. This shot was instantaneously fatal. Petitioner was charged with first degree murder. Following a jury trial in 2010, petitioner was convicted of the lesser included offense of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced petitioner to forty years imprisonment. Petitioner appealed, and this Court reversed the conviction and granted a new trial on the basis that petitioner’s rights under the Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article III section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution had been violated.1 In September of 2013, petitioner was tried again for the murder of Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • 1:12-Cv-09598 Document #: 60 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 1 of 13 Pageid
    Case: 1:12-cv-09598 Document #: 60 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:<pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ETHAN E. BICKELHAUPT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 12 C 9598 ) KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official ) Judge Sara L. Ellis capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department ) of Health and Human Services, and ) DAVID LEVINSON, in his official capacity ) as Inspector General of the U.S. Department ) of Health and Human Services, ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Ethan Bickelhaupt, a physician, brings this action to challenge his five year exclusion from receiving reimbursements from government health care programs. After his 2010 felony drug conviction, Bickelhaupt was excluded from government health care programs by Defendants David Levinson, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (collectively, the “Department”). Bickelhaupt unsuccessfully opposed his exclusion before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and an appeals board. Bickelhaupt contends that his exclusion from government health care programs is illegal because it violates: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), the equal protection clause, and the Rehabilitation Act. Now before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment, brought by both Bickelhaupt [28] and the Department [41]. The Court denies Bickelhaupt’s motion and grants the Department’s motion because Bickelhaupt’s exclusion does not constitute double jeopardy as it is merely a civil penalty, the Department did not violate the APA in interpreting Case: 1:12-cv-09598 Document #: 60 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:<pageID> the scope of exclusion, his exclusion is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, and the Rehabilitation Act does not bar exclusion where Bickelhaupt engaged in illegal conduct separate and apart from his addiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Jeopardy and Due Process Barry Siegal
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 59 | Issue 2 Article 10 1968 Double Jeopardy and Due Process Barry Siegal Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Barry Siegal, Double Jeopardy and Due Process, 59 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 247 (1968) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. DOUBLE JEOPARDY when such inspection will not interfere 2. The substance or text of the charge, with Department use. such as a complaint or indictment. D. Arrest reports, arrest records, supple- 3. The identity of the investigating and mentary reports and photographs will arresting unit and the length of the not be open for inspection to representatives investigation. of the press or other news media. 4. The circumstances immediately sur- E. From the time a person is arrested until the rounding an arrest, including the time proceeding has been terminated by trial or and place of arrest, resistance, pursuit, olherwise, the following types of information possession and use of weapons, and a will not be made available to the press or news description of items seized at the time media: of arrest. 1. Observations about an arrestee's charac- G. The officer in charge of an investigation ter or prior criminal record.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Supreme Court Refuses to Eliminate the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine Kevin Hellmann
    Journal of Law and Policy Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 5 1994 The alF lacy of Dueling Sovereignties: Why the Supreme Court Refuses to Eliminate the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine Kevin Hellmann Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp Recommended Citation Kevin Hellmann, The Fallacy of Dueling Sovereignties: Why the Supreme Court Refuses to Eliminate the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine, 2 J. L. & Pol'y (1994). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol2/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Policy by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. THE FALLACY OF DUELING SOVEREIGNTIES: WHY THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ELIMINATE THE DUAL SOVEREIGNTY DOCTRINE Kevin J. Hellmann* I. INTRODUCTION In 1993, Sergeant Stacey Koon of the Los Angeles Police Department was convicted of federal civil rights violations for his involvement in the brutal beating of Rodney King.' Sergeant Koon's conviction occurred one year after he had been acquitted of state charges for police misconduct based on the same beating.2 The conviction of Sergeant Koon vividly demonstrates how the dual sovereignty doctrine can subject criminal defendants to successive prosecutions for the same act. The text of the Constitution indicates that successive pros- ecutions such as these violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment? On its face, the double jeopardy clause protects individuals from being twice put in jeopardy of life and limb for the same offense.4 Yet the Supreme Court continues to allow * BLS Class of 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law--Criminal Procedure--Double Jeopardy Held
    St. John's Law Review Volume 44 Number 2 Volume 44, October 1969, Number 2 Article 8 Constitutional Law--Criminal Procedure--Double Jeopardy Held No Bar to Imposition of Harsher Penalty Upon Retrial--Due Process Mandates Credit for Time Previously Served (North Carolina v. Pearce, U.S. 1969) St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Recent Development in New York Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - DOUBLE JEOP- ARDY HELD No BAR To IMPOSITION OF HARSHER PENALTY UPON RE-TRIAL - DUE PROCESS MANDATES CREDIT FOR TIME PREVIOUSLY SERVED. -North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969). Respondent Pearce was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and sentenced to a term of 12 to 15 years in prison. Upon seek- ing post-conviction relief, he was awarded a new trial at which he was again convicted and sentenced to an 8 year prison term which, when complemented by the time previously served, amounted to a greater penalty than that originally imposed. Similarly, respondent Rice pleaded guilty to four counts of second degree burglary, and was sentenced to prison for an aggregate term of 10 years for all 4 counts. These judgments were later set aside; respondent was retried on 3 of the original counts, convicted and sentenced to prison for a total of 25 years without compensation for time already served.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the EIGHTH CIRCUIT ______
    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 01-3695 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Billy Jo Lara, also known as * Billy Joe Lara, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: September 11, 2002 Filed: March 24, 2003 ___________ Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, LOKEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, BYE, RILEY, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges, En Banc. ___________ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. After a Spirit Lake Nation Reservation tribal court convicted him of assaulting a police officer, Billy Jo Lara was indicted by the federal government for assault on a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Lara moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy and selective prosecution grounds. Following the district court’s denial of the motion, Lara entered a conditional plea of guilty to the indictment, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. A panel of this court affirmed, holding that because the power of the Spirit Lake Nation derives from its retained sovereignty and not from Congressionally delegated authority, Lara’s conviction on the federal charge did not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause. We granted Lara’s petition for rehearing en banc, vacating the panel’s opinion and judgment. We now reverse. I. While on the Spirit Lake Nation Reservation on June 13, 2001, Lara was arrested for public intoxication by Bureau of Indian Affairs police officers. The officers informed Lara, who is not a member of the Spirit Lake Nation, of an exclusion order prohibiting him from entering the reservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Jeopardy and Due Process
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 23 Number 2 Winter-Spring 1969 Article 10 5-1-1969 Double Jeopardy and Due Process R. Thomas Farrar Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation R. Thomas Farrar, Double Jeopardy and Due Process, 23 U. Miami L. Rev. 531 (1969) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol23/iss2/10 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND DUE PROCESS R. THOMAS FARRAR* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 531 II. T H CASES ................................................................ 533 A. The Suprem e Court .................................................... 533 1. PRIOR TO PALKO ...................................................... 533 2. PALKO AND ITS A-TERMIATH .................................................. 533 3. PALKO'S PROGENY .................................................... 536 B. The Lower Federal Courts .............................................. 540 III. THE STANDARD ............................................................ 548 I. INTRODUCTION In recent years the Supreme Court has been selectively incorpo- rating various guarantees of the Bill of Rights within the
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    Case: 08-3088 Document: 22 Filed: 08/04/2010 Pages: 20 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 08-3088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID M. LARSEN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 04 CR 29—Rudolph T. Randa, Judge. ARGUED MAY 5, 2009—DECIDED AUGUST 4, 2010 Before RIPPLE and SYKES, Circuit Judges, and LAWRENCE, District Judge.1 SYKES, Circuit Judge. David Larsen brutally beat Teri Jendusa-Nicolai, his ex-wife, at his home in Wisconsin. He then bound her with duct tape, stuffed her in a 1 The Honorable William T. Lawrence of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, sitting by designation. Case: 08-3088 Document: 22 Filed: 08/04/2010 Pages: 20 2 No. 08-3088 garbage can filled with snow, put the can in the back of his truck, and drove to a self-storage facility in Illinois. He left her there—still bound and in the snow-filled garbage can—in an unheated rented storage locker. She was discovered the next day, about an hour from death. Larsen was charged with state and federal crimes; the state charges were resolved first. See State of Wiscon- sin v. Larsen, 2007 WI App 147, 302 Wis. 2d 718, 736 N.W.2d 211. Thereafter in federal court, Larsen waived his right to a jury and after a trial to the court was con- victed of two counts: kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Double Jeopardy Clause As a Bar to Reintroducing Evidence
    The Double Jeopardy Clause as a Bar to Reintroducing Evidence The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids sub- jecting a defendant who has already been in jeopardy to retrial for the same offense.1 Although the clause was held applicable to the states a decade ago, 2 its implementation varies widely across jurisdictions. The difficulty in formulating uniform standards stems from the breadth and conceptual complexity of double jeopardy problems.3 In order to focus on the problem of multiple litigation arising out of the same factual allegations, this Note examines double jeopardy in the posture of successive prosecutions4 for criminal offenses5 against the same de- fendant by the same sovereign.6 The discussion concentrates on suc- cessive prosecutions in which jeopardy has attached in the first trial,7 1. U.S. CONST. amend. V ("No person shall . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb .. ") For a discussion of the common law roots of double jeopardy, see M. FRIEDLAND, DOUBLE JEOPARDY 5-15 (1969); J. SIGLER, DOUBLE JEOPARDY 4-16 (1969). 2. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969). 3. See United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 86-87 (1978) (overruling three-year-old pre- cedent, United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358 (1975)); Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 32 & n.6 (1978) (citing seven other cases from 1977 Term presenting "subtle and complex problems" of double jeopardy). 4. The Note considers only punishment imposed by sentence following conviction, thus obviating the need to determine what forms of sanctions are punishment for double jeopardy purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Dual Sovereignty, Rodney King, and the ACLU Susan Herman
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 1994 Double Jeopardy All Over Again: Dual Sovereignty, Rodney King, and the ACLU Susan Herman Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 41 UCLA L. Rev. 609 (1994) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. DOUBLE JEOPARDY ALL OVER AGAIN: DUAL SOVEREIGNTY, RODNEY KING, AND THE ACLU Susan N. Herman* When the federal government decided to reprosecute the Los Angeles police officers who beat Rodney King, anyone who recognized me as a civil libertarian asked me why it was not considered double jeopardy to retry defendants who had been acquitted in state court. My answer was aggra- vatingly more complex than the answer most members of the public received when they asked that question. Typically, lawyers (or journalists who had consulted lawyers) assured the public that the reprosecution was indubitably constitutional-because the well-established dual sovereignty doctrine creates an exception to usual double jeopardy rules. This answer sounded suitably technical and suitably conclusive. It also seemed to comport with the public's general sense that the American civil rights movement had depended heavily upon the historical prerogative of the federal government to reprosecute in cases where states did not adequately prosecute or punish civil rights violators. Doubts about the fairness of the second trial put to rest, observers of the federal retrial could then comfortably focus on the civil rights of the victim of the beating rather than the civil liberties of the perpetrators.
    [Show full text]