Although the second prosecution would have been permitted under Blockburger because two different victims were involved, the government here was not allowed to rehearse its case and secure a conviction against a person already declared not guilty of essentially the same crime. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), the Supreme Court collaterally estopped the government from prosecuting an individual for robbing one of six men at a poker game when a jury had already acquitted him of robbing another one of the six. Collateral estoppel, which prevents the same parties from relitigating ultimate factual issues previously determined by a valid and final judgment, is one such method. But several other methods have been used by courts to determine whether successive prosecutions are for the same offense. If any one offense is completely subsumed by another, such as a lesser included offense, the two offenses are deemed the same, and punishment is allowed only for one.īlockburger is the exclusive means by which courts determine whether cumulative punishments pass muster under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The prosecution has the burden of demonstrating that each offense has at least one mutually exclusive element. Blockburger requires courts to examine the elements of each offense as they are delineated by statute, without regard to the actual evidence that will be introduced at trial. The Court said that the government may prosecute an individual for more than one offense stemming from a single course of conduct only when each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not. The Supreme Court curbed this discretion in Blockburger v. This development has significantly enlarged prosecutors’ discretion over the charging process. For example, an individual who has stolen a car to facilitate an abduction resulting in attempted rape could be separately prosecuted and punished for auto theft, kidnapping, and molestation. But over the last fifty years the proliferation of overlapping and related offenses has made it possible for the government to prosecute someone for several different crimes stemming from the same set of circumstances. Courts have analyzed this question in several ways, depending on whether the state is attempting to re-prosecute a defendant or impose multiple punishments.Īt common law a single episode of criminal behavior produced only one prosecution, no matter how many wrongful acts may have been committed during that episode. The final question courts must resolve in double jeopardy litigation is determining whether successive prosecutions or punishments are for the “same offense.” Jeopardy may have already attached and terminated in a prior criminal proceeding, but the state may bring further criminal action against a person so long as it is not for the same offense.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |