Jump to content


Member Since 05 August 2011 - 03:54 PM
Offline Last Active Oct 08 2019 04:19 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: SCOTUS Decisions - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

01 October 2019 - 02:05 PM

View PostD. C. Sessions, on 01 October 2019 - 10:54 AM, said:

Being the victim of a malicious prosecution gets only slightly less by only allowing the State or the Federal prosecution since it really only applies in the case of dual malice. Not saying it doesn't happen, but we have over a century of systematic widespread sheltering of violent crime by local authorities who would have no motivation to not stage rushed mock trials and acquittals. Particularly given that they already, and routinely, staged rushed mock trials and convictions -- often with a death sentence that was carried out immediately.

I dunno man. It seems to me like show trials followed by swift executions would make you more skeptical of loopholes that increase state and federal prosecutorial power.

Anyway, here is the ACLU's position on the case. Worth the read. https://www.aclu.org...e-jeopardy-rule

In Topic: SCOTUS Decisions - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

01 October 2019 - 10:03 AM

View PostD. C. Sessions, on 30 September 2019 - 05:08 PM, said:

Which government?

Any of them. Double jeopardy is a limitation on all levels of government. This loophole makes it weaker for the benefit of both the state and the federal governments. Under the current weakened double jeopardy rule, the evil state prosecutor in your hypothetical could charge an innocent man with a crime he had already been acquitted of in federal court, except this time around it would be in front of a local jury with all the obvious implications. Which is worse: a guilty man walking free or an innocent man going to jail?

In Topic: SCOTUS Decisions - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

30 September 2019 - 03:50 PM

View Postindy, on 29 September 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

I'm sure you know that decisions to prosecute or not rely on a whole host of practical concerns that aren't always relevant to the guilt or innocence of the person(s) under consideration. Lacking resources, many local jurisdictions prioritize, and in most cases the priorities reflect local voter concerns. I consider that a logical reason to differentiate. I happen to live in an area where a black guy walking down the street still gets a lot of a looks, muttering, and more. If he were happened to be beaten up by some locals, I'm fairly certain no prosecution, or much of an investigation, would ensue unless it were so blatant or severe as to be impossible to ignore. Feds probably wouldn't do much either actually. I don't know. Ideally, prosecutors would hew closely to the ideals of their field and ideally, this kind of double jeopardy wouldn't be needed and so, ideally, I agree with you.

If the local prosecutor doesn't bring charges then double jeopardy is irrelevant. If they do bring charges then the feds have every opportunity to bring their own charges before a jury is empaneled. If a local jury delivers an absurd sentence then the feds can appeal the sentence. The federal government has protections built into this. Why do they need more, in the face of an express protection written into the constitution?

What about the reverse situation? Is it at least safe to say you don't think the state should be able to bring charges after the feds try and fail?

View PostD. C. Sessions, on 29 September 2019 - 09:09 AM, said:

Or, in far too many jurisdictions, if the case looks like the Feds might take an interest, the local arrests, files charges, and a very quick trial ensues with an outcome as predictable as that of a bill of impeachment landing in front of today's Senate.

Or perhaps the suspect enters a plea deal: he pleads guilty, the Court sentences him to 24 hours of probation and restoration of his civil rights with the record stricken..

The government might behave badly, therefore we should weaken a limitation on the government's power?

In Topic: SCOTUS Decisions - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

28 September 2019 - 09:05 PM

View Postindy, on 13 September 2019 - 11:46 AM, said:

Imagine all the civil rights/hate crimes cases being prosecuted by less-than-vigorous local prosecutors.

If a federal prosecutor were worried about this then they could supersede the state charges. Or better yet, offer assistance under a joint prosecution. The point is that the feds can't hang back and wait for a state verdict and then bring charges after someone is found innocent, not that the feds can't bring charges at all. Obviously this would mean the DOJ civil rights division would need more resources, but that's a political problem not a constitutional one. Compare that to the harm to an innocent person facing a second trial for the same incorrect charges. There is a really good reason that we don't allow double jeopardy in the vast majority of cases and there is no logical reason to differentiate between two federal trials vs one state trial + one federal trial.

In Topic: Russia Investigations

10 September 2019 - 03:37 PM

View PostJ-CA, on 03 September 2019 - 01:13 PM, said:

Or maybe the best explanation for Rosenstein is that in the transitional time between the pre-Trump "actually having some shame about doing bad things" Republican position and the current Trump shamelessness period there was a lot of confusion about just how much bad behaviour for partisan purposes was acceptable?
Like he was willing to commit to conduct that met the Bush-era lawlessness bar but still uncomfortable with Trump-era levels of lawlessness?

Had to guffaw at this one a bit. Bush-era lawlessness was wars based on lies and domestic spy programs and kidnappings and torture. Rosenstein wrote a memo that made a reasonable argument for firing someone who unambiguously deserved to be fired. Trump then used that memo as a pretext for firing that person for a different, unlawful reason. John Yoo write a memo arguing that torture is good. Bush then used that memo as justification for torturing people. I'll take petty grifts and corruption over war crimes any day of the week.