[ad_1]
L The Supreme Court asked Thursday whether it should end a long-standing doctrine allowing a state and the federal government to prosecute a person for the same behavior, a case that could have consequences for the special advocate Robert Mueller. investigation.
The dispute between Terance Gamble (Alabama) and the federal government is about whether judges should overturn the so-called doctrine of separate sovereignty, which means that people are prosecuted before the federal government for the same crime. This doctrine is an exception to the double incrimination clause in the Fifth Amendment, which states that no one may be subjected to the same death penalty twice for the same offense.
[ Read: Paul Manafort might not be spared a Supreme Court ruling against "double criminality".]
During the 80-minute oral argument, several judges raised questions about overturning a long-standing rule, suggesting a
Judge Elena Kagan said the Stare decisis judgment is a "kind of doctrine of humility in which we say that we are really uncomfortable throwing rules of 170 years that 30 judges have been approved simply because we think we can do it better. "
" Look at the door we are opening, "Judge Stephen Breyer told Louis Chaiten, who had pleaded the case on behalf of Gamble.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh added that the ban on overturning a precedent is "not only to prove wrong, but also to show that it is terribly wrong."
"Can you erase this obstacle?" asked Kavanaugh at Chaiten.
It is likely that a decision of the judges goes beyond ideologies, as Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas have, in the past, urged the court to look again at the question of whether the state and the federal government can sue a person for the same reasons
Ginsburg told Eric Feigin, who was arguing for the Department of Justice, that the rule "has been widely criticized by academics and federal judges."
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared equally skeptical on both sides. He first wondered if the end of the successive lawsuits initiated by the state and the federal government would lead to a "race in court" to see who could start with a jury.
But he later stated that it was likely that if the courts were on Gamble's side, state and federal prosecutors would come together to develop a means of coordination.
Judge Neil Gorsuch spoke of the possibility of a "proliferation of federal crimes" and suggested that this could be grounds for the court to revisit the doctrine. & # 39; & # 39;
Gamble was arrested for a broken rear light. The police smelled marijuana in the car and, during a search, found two drug bags, a digital scale and a 9-millimeter handgun.
Gamble was sued by the state for possession of marijuana. Alabama and the federal government, however, accused him of being a criminal in possession of a firearm.
Gamble seeks to overturn his federal accusation. However, the Federal District Court and the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Gamble, citing the long-standing Supreme Court doctrine that allowed successive lawsuits.
The case was closely watched in the context of the investigation by the special advocate Robert Mueller into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
Mueller has already obtained guilty pleas five former partners of President Trump, including his former campaign president, Paul Manafort, and further prosecution could be initiated as a result of the investigation.
Frequent comments by Trump discrediting Mueller's investigation led some to suggest that he would forgive associates like Manafort or members of his family if they were accused in the investigation. According to some legal experts, ending the doctrine of different rulers could prevent states from prosecuting those accused of the Mueller investigation under their own laws if the federal government acted.
A decision of the judges is expected by the end of June.
[ad_2]
Source link
