Annemarie Rodriguez Rodriguez 1
Professor Turner
English 01
11/9/17
Double Jeopardy
The 5th amendment of the United States Constitution states “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (Kennedy 159). Any government body will not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, nor compel him to live in a state of anxiety and insecurity (Kennedy 164).The intricacies of the double jeopardy clause are an uphill battle and though it is an inalienable right, that clause is slowly eroding.
Bartkus v. Illinois, 1959; defendant Bartkus was acquitted in federal court of robbery, (Lawschool). Shortly thereafter, he was indicted for the same offense by the State of Illinois. Consequently, his conviction was upheldand his appeal overturned, as the Court based their judgement on “dual sovereignty.” Dual sovereignty is defined as “a doctrine holding that more than one sovereign (as a state government and the federal government) may prosecute an individual without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy if the individual's act breaks the laws of each sovereignty” (Findlaw).In general, the double jeopardy clause only applies to the protection of individuals being prosecuted twice or more by the same government (legaldictionary). Federal and state prosecutors may file separate charges based
Rodriguez 2
on the same crime if it’s concluded that laws in both jurisdictions were violated. It’s a loophole that, by personal interpretation, violates an individual’s civil rights.The 5th amendment pertains to the Bill of Rights which applies at the Federal level, not at State. Unfortunately for Bartkus, the parameters of the 5th amendment wasn’t applied at the State level until 1969 with Benton v. Maryland.
A brief overview of Benton v. Maryland;Benton was tried in Maryland state court for burglary and larceny and resultingly acquitted of larceny, however convicted of burglary (Justia). Upon appeal, the defense argued that the jurors were selected un-constitutionally and Benton was allowed to opt for a retrial. In the second trial, Benton was ultimately convicted of both larceny and burglary, both sentences to be served consecutively (Justia). Following his convictions, Benton’s defense brought his case to the Appellate Court arguing violation of his 5th amendment. The double jeopardy in this instance is that Benton was originally acquitted of larceny and now found guilty. Since Benton was only appealing his burglary conviction, State prosecutors should have only retried him for that specific offense. Benton was arguably coerced into an unlawful retrial that hindered his right to pursue “life, liberty, and property.” The Supreme Court consequently overturned Benton’s larceny conviction interpreting that “…the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and so made it enforceable against the states” (Justia). In simpler terms, the Supreme Court found that the double jeopardy clause coincided with the due process clause of the Bill of Rights, or fair and just treatment of citizens in the judicial system. By this extension, the double jeopardy clause which originally only applied to Federal Courts could now be upheld in State Courts.
Rodriguez 3
The debacle isn’t necessarily the legality of the double jeopardy clause, but more so advocacy and opposition based onsentiment. Predisposed judgments of guilt or innocence often weigh heavy throughout the litigation process, though many may claim otherwise. Social outcry of injustice and inequality demands conviction or acquittal. An example is the result of the LA Riots of 1992 relating to the Rodney King trial. Four white officers were acquitted of assault and use of excessive force in the apprehension of Rodney King (CNN). Public outcry of police brutality, in accordance with racial and economic tensions between the African American general public and predominantly white police force resulted in a week-long riot of the city of Los Angeles. It wasn’t until the following year that two of the four officers involved were indicted in violating King’s civil rights “…to be free from an arrest made with unreasonable force” (CNN). The double jeopardy herein is that the officers were initially tried in State Court for assault charges. After acquittal, the officers were then tried by the Federal prosecutor for violating civil rights; the same crime but two different offenses in two different jurisdictions. From a social standpoint, the double jeopardy clause could be interpreted as it gave King some form of justice. Though litigation was not successful criminally, civilly it protected King by reaffirming that his civil rights not be violated. One begs the question of whether the civil conviction of the officers was to Kings benefit of simply a public relations issue. Some may interpret it as the national government providing a form of reassurance to an uneasy and trepid populous.
The complexities of the double jeopardy clause will always persist. Each individual and, or case is unique and constitutes its own interpretations. Double jeopardy was first introduced in the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens and ensure lawful civil and criminal processes.
Rodriguez 4
The People have the right and must be provided the resources to defend themselves from possible unfair treatment against the so-called infallible judicial system. And yet, as it is a means to protect, there seems to be an endless bounty of loopholes and technicalities that sometimes make it faulty. To whose benefit this clause, the government or the people, will be a constant underlying question.
Rodriguez 5
Works Cited
“Bartkus v Illinois Case Brief.” Lawschool. Accessed 8 Nov 2017.
“Benton v Maryland.” Justia. Accessed 5 Nov 2017.
“Double Jeopardy.” Legal Dictionary. Accessed 7 Nov 2017.
“Dual Sovereignty Doctrine.” Findlaw. Accessed 7 Nov 2017.
“Los Angeles Riots Fast Facts.” CNN. 23 April 2017. . Accessed 8 Nov 2017.