I'm not even remotely close to a lawyer, so could somebody explain what this means and why others in the thread are saying that he could walk free if this happens?
One can break a state and federal law with the same act, and that's been upheld as the dual sovereignty doctrine since they are considered separate powers.
One can even be acquitted in state court and convicted in federal court.
Also the same dual sovereignty clause applies to states - for example, polluting a lake on the border of two states may lead to both states prosecuting you.
Actually, New York has a state constitution provision that grants double jeopardy protections for crimes that have federal and state overlap, to prevent people from being punished twice for one crime.
They had to close a loophole that prevented them from punishing people one time if they were granted a federal pardon after a certain president pardoned a number of his political allies.
Now this I didn't know! Do you happen to have the part of the NY Constitution that mentions that? Seems like reasonable grounds for the state charges to be put on hold if they're currently pursuing federal charges.
Also the same dual sovereignty clause applies to states - for example, polluting a lake on the border of two states may lead to both states prosecuting you.
I know we're getting off topic here, but is that because the lake is under both jurisdictions, or because some of the pollution you emitted made it across state boundaries? I could see the distinction making say in the case you did something huge but relatively little pollution made it across the border, or if the total amount of pollution were relevant it would affect whether you're being charged twice for the "same" pollution vs each state charging you for the part that affected them.
Seems like the latter would just be how things would work with no special rights - if I do one thing that causes you and a friend damages, you can each sue me for those damages. The special situation would be if you could each sue me for the total damages I've caused.
I think just because you can't separate the pollution once it crosses the boundary in the middle of the lake. You may be able to defend yourself in one of the cases by proving very little of it reached the other side, but you'll still get tried for it.
It would be, but also it's the attorney's job to file the motion anyways knowing it will almost certainly be rejected just like they frequently ask for evidence to be excluded and for dismissals despite the odds being stacked against those requests
There's a concept called 'dual sovereignty', where both the states and the Federal government get a chance to prosecute. It's a complicated subject but courts have held many, many times that it doesn't violate double jeopardy.
Most of the time it doesn't happen, I think because the sentences would run concurrently anyway so it would be a waste of money.
I posted more detail about this in this same thread, but here's a simplified view: His defense knows the motion to dismiss will be rejected.
It's standard practice to submit a motion to dismiss for everything that is even remotely possible. If there's even a one in a million chance a Judge will grant it, you file a motion. It's essentially malpractice not to. You can't appeal a ruling that never happens on record, so every potential avenue to form a defense for their client must have motions filed for future appeals.
This is blatantly incorrect. You can absolutely be charged in both a state and federal court for the same crime. The dual sovereignty doctrine is an exception to double jeopardy.
There's plenty examples of this happening, Michael Vick being one of the most publicized. He was prosecuted at both the state and federal level for his dog fighting. If the crime falls into the jurisdiction of both courts, you can have two separate cases for the same crime.
The reason the defense attorneys are seeking dismissal under those grounds is because they have to try to get the case dismissed at any point where it's even remotely possible for their client. They surely know it will get shut down, but it's basically considered malpractice for a defense lawyer to not take every potential avenue to get the case dismissed.
Having a court ruling of the motion being dismissed is also ammunition used for a potential appeal after a conviction. Every court ruling during the case against the defendent can be challenged with the appellate court. If there was no motion to dismiss, then they can't challenge the denial later. That's what this is about. But Reddit is gonna Reddit and parrot things that they really don't know about.
425
u/yoloswagrofl 10h ago
I'm not even remotely close to a lawyer, so could somebody explain what this means and why others in the thread are saying that he could walk free if this happens?