So it sounds like the DH from NOI is getting charged by the feds as well as local prosecutors in state courts.

I don't have any sympathy for this %#@%, but remember how the officers were acquitted in Rodney King I and then the feds nailed them in RK II?    I thought that sucked big time as double jeopardy -- even though it was done by 2 different jurisdictions -- it was for the same acts.

Would someone knowledgable in the law explain when it's DJ and when it's not?

It is only Double Jeopardy when the defendant is not white and has killed a police officer or a small child. Exceptions can be made if the defendant looks like a big meanie.

Don't you just love Democrats and the ACLU?

The State and the federal governments are referred to as 'separate soverigns.'

Each sovereign has the right to prosecute any crimes that are done against its own laws.

The States of Maryland, Virginia, Washington, and now, Louisiana, are all empowered, as sovereign governments the right to prosecute crimes occurring within their borders.

The Federal government may also prosecute any crimes as defined by its own laws.

This is the way it has been since the founding of the Republic, and should not offend anyone's sensibilities, at all.

There are different laws and procedures that attach to each sovereign's enforcement of its laws.

For examply, Malvo, being 17 years of age, cannot receive the death penalty in Virginia, while Muhammad can.

In Louisiana, Malvo can be tried and executed for the murder of the store clerk, if it occurred during the commission of an armed robbery (which it did), and if the state can prove that he, and not Muhammad, was the shooter.

The laws of evidence may also differ from state to state, with the federal government having its own Rules of Criminal Procedure.

So, all in all, it makes good sense.

Eric The(Legal)Hun[>]:)]

Double Jeopardy - a provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the US.  Was held applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Basically it keeps the "State" from filing charges again once a crime has been adjudicated. (found guilty, not guilty, certain mistrials)

This does not apply to different "State" entities that both have jurisdiction on a single crime.  For example, if you commit a crime in a State that is both a State crime and a Federal Crime, both can bring charges against you since they are different Jurisdictions.  Same applies to the military.  If they commit a crim that is both a military crime and a State crime, the military can send them to the brig and then when they get out, the State can proceed with charges.

There is really no such thing as double jeopordy, anyhow.  If they wanna getcha, nevermind that you've been tried and found innocent.  They'll bring other charges, different jurisdictions, civil charges, etc.  It's a bunch of bullshit.  DAMN, do I wanna be an attorney!

It strikes me as unfair and contrary to the intent of the constitution when the feds and the state try you for the same action.  The precedent for this  approach is not really that old IIRC.  There used to be less state-federal overlap in laws, so it never really came up.  What happened to the LAPD officers in the King case was BS.

But where these two guys are being charged by each state where they committed a murder, I have no problem with that.  It was a separate crime in each state.

The rest is correct, but this is wrong.  Malvo can be executed in VA.



They can be tried for EVERY murder seperately.  They also committed crimes in several different jurisdictions, and can be tried in each of them for the crime committed in that jurisdiction.

It is NOT double jeopardy, not even close.

Seperate crime, seperate trial.

Seperate jurisdiction, seperate trial.

They can be retried in the event of a mistrial or hung jury.

Each individual act was a crime.  Double jeopardy states that you cannt be tried twice for the same crime.  That's not entirely true.  You can only not be tried twice if the jury finds that you are either not guilty, guilty, NGRI, the law is unjust (the dreaded jury nullification), or that you committed a crime with justification (justifiable homicide, breaking and entering to escape a blizzard).  If the jury makes no unanimous finding (hung jury) you can be tried again.  If there is a mistrial because of misconduct, you can be tried again.