The Supreme Court recently weakened constitutional protections against double jeopardy in Blueford v. Arkansas, a homicide case. The 6-to-3 decision was written by Chief Justice Roberts. It allowed a defendant to be retried for murder -- not just manslaughter -- even though the jury forewoman had reported that the jurors had unanimously rejected murder charges and were deadlocked on the lesser manslaughter count.
In the Blueford decision, more of the liberal justices were protective of double jeopardy protections than conservative justices. But in other contexts, liberals are even more eager to sacrifice constitutional protections against double jeopardy -- even where a jury has rejected not just some charges (as in the Blueford case) but all charges against the defendant.
In 2009, a liberal Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, an expansion of federal hate crimes law partly designed to enable federal prosecutors to reprosecute people who had already been acquitted of hate crimes in state court. (This is permitted under a loophole in double-jeopardy protections known as the "dual sovereignty" doctrine). Liberal Supreme Court Justices had earlier proved less sympathetic than conservative justices to defendants subjected to federal prosecutions after a state court acquittal in Koon v. United States (1996), a case with racial overtones. The defendants' convictions in that case were sustained based on "dual sovereignty," but the Court reduced their sentences, citing the successive prosecutions. In politically charged cases, some people just can't accept a not-guilty verdict or dropped prosecution. As law professor Gail Heriot has noted, some supporters of the 2009 federal hate crimes law "even called for federal prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse team members-despite strong evidence of their innocence."
Hans Bader on double jeopardy safeguards: Blueford v. Arkansas
- New Podcast: John Edwards prosecution
- Supreme Court Takes A Bite Out Of Double Jeopardy
- James Copland: Justice Department may be in the next cubicle
- The John Edwards trial: "Cad Example"
- Arbitrary campaign finance prosecution department
- Around the web, May 11
- Around the web, May 10
- Paul Larkin responds to FOCUS Act critiques
- Around the web, May 7
- How will the Supreme Court rule in Arizona v. U.S.?
- Breaking: federal Kentucky fen-phen convictions upheld
- Overcriminalization annals
- Olson on Wal-Mart bribery allegations and the FCPA
- Speaking of upside-down premption: Arizona v. United States
Center for Legal Policy at the