BART Shooter Released Today

[Kirk Freeman]

An end to a very sad chapter in American civil rights finished today at 12:01AM.

The man that shot Oscar Grant in the infamous BART shooting was released from prison today after serving a two year sentence for involuntary manslaughter.

BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rest in Peace Oscar Grant. I hope your family uses the money you traded, albeit against your will, for your life to work good in this life.

 

[jeremy]

Dupe...

 

[rambone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJukcFzEX4

 

[dross]

Looks like a sad situation all around.

I do think, however, that two separate prosecutions for the same act constitute double jeopardy, regardless of the current state of the law.

 

[ryknoll3]

An end to a very sad chapter in American civil rights finished today at 12:01AM.

The man that shot Oscar Grant in the infamous BART shooting was released from prison today after serving a two year sentence for involuntary manslaughter.

BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rest in Peace Oscar Grant. I hope your family uses the money you traded, albeit against your will, for your life to work good in this life.

You mean 11 months of a two year sentence because he was well-behaved in the slammer. I'd love for any politician who EVER says that only police officers are trained and qualified enough to carry a gun watch the video of this shooting, along with the Glock Fo-Tay guy video and the police woman shooting a dude on the ground video.

The officer that offed the guy stated at trial that he meant to use his taser. How do you POSSIBLY mistake the two. A loaded Glock weighs TWICE that of a taser, and the taser has a manual safety. Oh, and police officers supposedly have all the training that enables them to handle these situations.

I could see if this happened in the midst of a struggle, or in a high-stress situation. The dude was on the ground with a knee in his back, and while he wasn't being super cooperative, it wasn't really a high-stress moment.

I also wonder if the same 2 years for involuntary sentence would be imposed on a citizen who "accidentally" shot an unarmed man in the back while he was on the ground?

 

[T.Lex]

I do think, however, that two separate prosecutions for the same act constitute double jeopardy, regardless of the current state of the law.

A nuance of federalism. The same act can support prosecution by a state jurisdiction and the feds. Timothy McVeigh is an example - he had both Oklahoma and federal charges, and was ultimately executed for the federal conviction.

Double jeopardy just says the same jurisdiction can't prosecute 2x for the same act.

(Oh, and there are exceptions for that even, depending on whether the jury was seated, and if there was an appeal, etc.)

 

[dross]

A nuance of federalism. The same act can support prosecution by a state jurisdiction and the feds. Timothy McVeigh is an example - he had both Oklahoma and federal charges, and was ultimately executed for the federal conviction.

Double jeopardy just says the same jurisdiction can't prosecute 2x for the same act.

(Oh, and there are exceptions for that even, depending on whether the jury was seated, and if there was an appeal, etc.)

Yes, I understand that's how it is. I'm disagreeing with the status quo. I still think it's putting someone twice in jeopardy for the same offense.

 

[T.Lex]

To me, it is a good paradigm, in the sense that it keeps the feds separate from the states. There is SO much freakin' overlap nowadays... I guess I cling to any separation I can find.

Overall, it tends toward justice, IME. The civil rights prosecutions are a good example. Generally, state criminal sentences are more lenient than federal ones, too.

 

[dross]

To me, it is a good paradigm, in the sense that it keeps the feds separate from the states. There is SO much freakin' overlap nowadays... I guess I cling to any separation I can find.

Overall, it tends toward justice, IME. The civil rights prosecutions are a good example. Generally, state criminal sentences are more lenient than federal ones, too.

You could achieve separation by choosing which jurisdiction you try him in.

Take the Rodney King beating. My understanding was that it was much harder to prove the civil rights violation than the original state charges. Except for the fact that the Federal prosecutors sat in the courtroom and took notes.

Think philosophically for a second. What's the purpose of the prohibition against double jeopardy? So that you are not twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. If I strike you, or blow up a building, that's only one act. I either did it or I didn't do it. If a jury finds that I did it, then fine, try me for the federal offenses as well. If a jury finds that the prosecution didn't prove that I actually did the act, then I should be set free. One shot at proving I did it.

If I've been found not guilty of blowing up a building, how can I later be guilty of blowing up a building and killing federal agents? I either blew up the building or I didn't. The spirit of the double jeopardy prohibition requires that you only get one shot to prove I blew up the building.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Generally, state criminal sentences are more lenient than federal ones, too.

Unless one is convicted of moving powder cocaine.

 

[T.Lex]

Think philosophically for a second.

heh heh

I spend TOO much time thinking philosophically.

If I strike you, or blow up a building, that's only one act. I either did it or I didn't do it. If a jury finds that I did it, then fine, try me for the federal offenses as well. If a jury finds that the prosecution didn't prove that I actually did the act, then I should be set free. One shot at proving I did it.

There's a fundamental mistrust, though, between the state and federal systems. The paradigm you describe lends itself to abuse.

Think of the civil rights era. Rather routinely white juries would acquit white defendants of crimes against black victims in local courts. Or, even better, waive the jury trial so that the local judge could acquit the local golden boy.

That's even setting aside the differences in legislative drafting. Battery in Indiana is not necessarily the same as Ohio (nor should it be required to be), and is not necessarily the same as under federal law. The different facts may be relied upon in the state and federal systems. Now, for a practical matter, the run-of-the-mill crimes are going to basically be the same. But, my experience is that the state and federal prosecutors rarely ever try the same guy for the same thing. Waste of resources.

When it does happen, there is usually a pretty compelling reason for it. Like the case in the OP.

@KF - "Send lawyers, guns and money...."

 

[E5RANGER375]

I think its philosophically bull **** that I cant understand a damn thing you all are talking about because of all of the legal terms. i thought the law was supposed to protect the regular guy. hows that supposed to happen when i cant even understand it and have to hire someone I dont even trust to defend me if I ever need it?

 

[dross]

There's a fundamental mistrust, though, between the state and federal systems. The paradigm you describe lends itself to abuse.

Think of the civil rights era. Rather routinely white juries would acquit white defendants of crimes against black victims in local courts. Or, even better, waive the jury trial so that the local judge could acquit the local golden boy.

This sounds suspiciously like you are making the argument that having two shots at the guy for the same set of facts can help ensure who deserves to be convicted gets convicted.

That's even setting aside the differences in legislative drafting. Battery in Indiana is not necessarily the same as Ohio (nor should it be required to be), and is not necessarily the same as under federal law. The different facts may be relied upon in the state and federal systems.

I don't have a problem if for instance, a guy is acquitted in state court for blowing up a building and then tried in federal court for hauling explosives across state lines. That's not double jeopardy.

Now, for a practical matter, the run-of-the-mill crimes are going to basically be the same. But, my experience is that the state and federal prosecutors rarely ever try the same guy for the same thing. Waste of resources.

When it does happen, there is usually a pretty compelling reason for it. Like the case in the OP.

@KF - "Send lawyers, guns and money...."

The compelling reason seems to usually be that the case is high profile and the first trial didn't produce the desired result.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think its philosophically bull **** that I cant understand a damn thing you all are talking about because of all of the legal terms. i thought the law was supposed to protect the regular guy. hows that supposed to happen when i cant even understand it and have to hire someone I dont even trust to defend me if I ever need it?

I think one of our founders thought the very same thing

 

[dross]

I think its philosophically bull **** that I cant understand a damn thing you all are talking about because of all of the legal terms. i thought the law was supposed to protect the regular guy. hows that supposed to happen when i cant even understand it and have to hire someone I dont even trust to defend me if I ever need it?

I'm not a lawyer, I just argue with them on the Internets.

 

[T.Lex]

This sounds suspiciously like you are making the argument that having two shots at the guy for the same set of facts can help ensure who deserves to be convicted gets convicted....
I don't have a problem if for instance, a guy is acquitted in state court for blowing up a building and then tried in federal court for hauling explosives across state lines. That's not double jeopardy.

Well, I pretty much agree that in an idyllic world, it would work that way. But, there's a problem with your way... (wait for it)... lawyers.

There are so many ways to parse out the actions of human conduct.

Using McVeigh as an example, let's say OK had a crime called "murder" when you kill someone and Timmy got convicted of it. Let's say the feds had crime called "terrorism" that you didn't have to actually kill anyone, but if you did, that increased your sentence.

Would that violate your double jeopardy? One act - blowing up a bomb - but 2 different crimes.

From another angle, how would you decide who got that first prosecution? For practical purposes, the agency that actually arrested the guy? In that case, you risk agencies competing against each other, which would not be good.

The current system is not perfect, but it has evolved pretty well for ~250 years or so.

The compelling reason seems to usually be that the case is high profile and the first trial didn't produce the desired result.

There are worse reasons. (And better ones...)

 

[dross]

Well, I pretty much agree that in an idyllic world, it would work that way. But, there's a problem with your way... (wait for it)... lawyers.

Don't make me quote Shakespeare on you.

There are so many ways to parse out the actions of human conduct.

Using McVeigh as an example, let's say OK had a crime called "murder" when you kill someone and Timmy got convicted of it. Let's say the feds had crime called "terrorism" that you didn't have to actually kill anyone, but if you did, that increased your sentence.

Would that violate your double jeopardy? One act - blowing up a bomb - but 2 different crimes.

No, I don't have a problem with that. I can understand one act violating different laws in different jurisdictions. (Though I also think the piling on of violations that prosecutors can do in order to intimidate someone into a plea bargain is a problem as well.) What I have trouble with, as I explained above, is being found by the tryer of fact to in one case, not have committed an act, and in another trial to be found by the tryer of fact to have committed the act.

From another angle, how would you decide who got that first prosecution? For practical purposes, the agency that actually arrested the guy? In that case, you risk agencies competing against each other, which would not be good.

I don't have an answer for this question. I don't have the requisite knowledge. I'm sure it could be worked out, and to me, the higher principle is the prohibition against double jeopardy.

The current system is not perfect, but it has evolved pretty well for ~250 years or so.

That's not a satisfactory argument to me. For instance, I hate many of the ways our system has evolved - the prevalence of judicial activism, for instance.

I'd also be interested in knowing when it was first ruled that someone could be tried in two different jurisdictions for the same set of facts. I thought that was a very recent thing. Please educate me if it's not.

 

[in625shooter]

Just for your gee whiz information all might find interesting. Tim McVey was convicted of only 8 counts of murder. They charged McVey in federal court for the 8 FED LEO's that were killed. Before someone argues let me explain the reason. It's not that the FED's were woth more than anyone else. That left 160 other counts McVey could have been charged with in the case of an aquital and that would not constitute "double jeapordy" It also left the state of OK open to file charges.
That is one reason why McVey's lawyers tried unsuccessfully to stop the family of the other 160 people murdered from watching his execution.

 

[dross]

Just for your gee whiz information all might find interesting. Tim McVey was convicted of only 8 counts of murder. They charged McVey in federal court for the 8 FED LEO's that were killed. Before someone argues let me explain the reason. It's not that the FED's were woth more than anyone else. That left 160 other counts McVey could have been charged with in the case of an aquital and that would not constitute "double jeapordy" It also left the state of OK open to file charges.
That is one reason why McVey's lawyers tried unsuccessfully to stop the family of the other 160 people murdered from watching his execution.

This is pretty much what we're arguing about.

 

[T.Lex]

No, I don't have a problem with that. I can understand one act violating different laws in different jurisdictions.

Then I admit (probably my fault) to some confusion about your position. I won't quote you (this time), but I thought your point was that one act should not be considered a violation of different laws of different jurisdictions. That is, only one jurisdiction could prosecute for all the violations of its laws for any given act.

Again, apologies if I misunderstood.

(Though I also think the piling on of violations that prosecutors can do in order to intimidate someone into a plea bargain is a problem as well.)

I hate that, too. Overcharging just for that reason is generally not a good idea, and at times comes very close to an ethical violation. But, it can be a fine line between seeking the most justice for any particular situation, knowing that parts of it will be a bit of a longshot.

I'm sure it could be worked out, and to me, the higher principle is the prohibition against double jeopardy.

Well, here's the short version - it can't really be worked out.

I'd also be interested in knowing when it was first ruled that someone could be tried in two different jurisdictions for the same set of facts. I thought that was a very recent thing. Please educate me if it's not.

Well, there are sorta 2 different issues there: double jeopardy and venue/jurisdiction.

As to double jeopardy, here's a decent wiki entry on separate sovereigns:
Double jeopardy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 5th Amendment is the constitutional underpinning of double jeopardy in the United States. Also, though, the experience of William Penn at the hands of the English formed a sort of rallying cry:
William Penn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the case that applied the 5th Amendment to the states; it has an interesting factual basis:
Benton v. Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In terms of first case to allow state and federal prosecutions, I believe this is it - US v. Lanza, decided in 1922.
UNITED STATES V. LANZA, 260 U. S. 377 :: Volume 260 :: 1922 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and may be punished by each.

Now, it is important to consider that, at that time, the idea was that the federal constitution only limited the federal gov't. So, it only prohibited 2x prosecution by the federal government. The federal double jeopardy prohibition could not limit state prosecutions. (That was changed by the Benton case, I believe.) So, part of the genesis of the overlapping jurisdiction was the idea of limited application of the federal constitution.

Interesting overview of federalism/double jeopardy/gun control (how's that for bringing it on-topic?) is here:
Double Jeopardy - Blurring the lines between state and federal crimes

As to venue or jurisdiction, a simple idea like "where the crime happened is where it should be prosecuted" can get pretty complicated.