Undertaking of two state trials in two diverse states over murder case concerning the same person does not violate the US Double Jeopardy Clause in US. This thesis is based on the fifth amendment of the constitution of the United States. Based on the US constitution, a similar conduct may be constituted into multiple offences. The double Jeopardy clause prohibits the US government from impeaching a defendant more than once for a given offence. In addition, the clause shuns more than one punishment for one offence. As provided by the US constitution, there are just but a few specific offences which can invoke double jeopardy protection. It is however noted that in case any particular proceeding fails to categorize an individual under jeopardy, then all the subsequent punishments for the same mischief are not forbidden by the clause.
Based on the Double jeopardy Clause, there are various reasons and circumstances under which a person may be tried. The basic concepts of such trials are based on the Jeopardy Clause citations in respect to the Supreme Court (Anthony 1993). The only exemption of such trespass can only be allowed under murder cases. In this case, the criminals can be tried in more than one state under a similar murder case. In as much as the constitution provides for a strict verdict pertaining to continuation of cases, Double Jeopardy Clause is not at all violated in this scenario.
“Under the certain circumstances two state trials in two different states for the murder of the same person may not violate the double jeopardy clause of the US constitution” (Schmidle 2011). In case a person convicted of murder is presented before a jury the judgment shall be passed according to the provisions of the law in the US constitution. The same person may be found guilty of committing murder and is convicted under a different statute. The expectation is that the person shall get convicted and punished as well since the statutory provisions are different. However the Double Jeopardy clause allows that the persons’ crimes are tried at different levels. The cases also should be tried under different circumstances.
Initially the double jeopardy clause allows that each murder case be tried at different court level and using different provisions. The clause prohibits the instance where a person is re-tried after being released by the judges. The person is considered free once the judgment concerning the case is passed for the first time by the judges (Schmidle 2011). A second person may be interested in re-litigating the same case in another court. However the second court shall not allow the conviction to get through. The second jury passes its judgment based on the knowledge that the initial judgment was not supported by strong evidence. In case the evidence used in the first murder case was not sufficient enough to convict the person; the second evidence may not hold enough water to convict the criminal.
A murder case may not violate the double jeopardy clause even he is accused of committing two similar murder cases. This may be so due to a provision by the double jeopardy clause. This extra prohibition by the double jeopardy clause says that a criminal shall not be retired following a conviction by the jury. A person who is accused of murder can be taken to court for the same case at different occasions. However the judgment may not violate the jeopardy clause since the initial conviction stands more strongly than the second clause. Therefore although the second case demands a conviction of a higher standard, the person may not be punished. He shall be acquitted for the second case since the initial case judgment is already being executed.
The Clause recommends that double Jeopardy concept be permitted strictly to the proceedings threatening limb or life (Schmidle 2011). As observed from the American Supreme Court proceedings, rights against Jeopardy have been extended far beyond corporeal punishments. Based on the US constitution, Double Jeopardy captains the “attached” concept.in respect to this concept; the court system is empowered by the constitution to withhold decisive jeopardy powers. The court then decides on what point during the proceedings that the defendant can exercise prosecution rights. All the actions partaken by the government shortly sooner than jeopardy attaches does not prevent proceedings of the same cases. On the converse point of view, as soon as jeopardy has attached, protection of criminals against subsequent proceedings takes hold.
As provided by the Supreme Court of the US, a ruling has been arrived at to attach jeopardy during the swearing in of the jury. The Clause further provides that once a terminating point has been arrived at in jeopardy, the government would not try an individual in court unless double jeopardy is arrived at.
It is also evident that the federal and the state courts can address the same murder case depending on the need to corporate to handle it. The state and the federal courts can judge and pass judgments on a similar case regardless of the intensity without violating the double jeopardy clause. This is because the two courts are two different sovereign bodies. An example is a murder crime committed by the same person and taken for trial in state court. The constitution provided that then judge has the entire jurisdiction to pass the appropriate judgment without violating the double jeopardy clause. On the other hand the same crime may be taken to the federal court to have the judge help in carrying out the proceedings. Sometimes the murder cases may be too difficult or require a lot of procedures that the state may hand over to the federal courts.
The state court may hand over the murder case to the federal court if the cases are similar. Murder cases may be of different levels depending on whether the murder is associated with the rape or any other kind of assault (Anthony 1993). The federal court may place is type of case as civil and the procedure used to pass judgments are somehow different. Consequently, this necessitates the need to incorporate the federal government without violating the double jeopardy clause.
The double jeopardy clause shall not be violated if the person convicted of murder in the first state case as well as the convicted for a second case. This is possible even if the first case is acquitted for by a judge on basis of insufficient evidence. The jury therefore cannot re litigate the murder case once the judge has passed the initial judgment. The murder cases shall be evaluated on the basis of which judgment was passed first (Kanovitz 2010). The criminal shall be convicted against the initial judgment passed. The judge also is not allowed to pass an overruling judgment against a not guilty case. He can however overrule a guilty case without violating the double jeopardy clause. On the other hand if the first murder case is charged and another lawsuit rose concerning murder, the jury’s conviction may be overruled against. The retrial may take place only regarding the second case and not the first. Then if the second murder crime is convicted and the criminal charged then the judge is considered to acquit the criminal of the first murder case. This is therefore appropriate in line with the double jeopardy clause.
For the murder crime to be consistent with the double jeopardy clause the criminal shall not be retired after conviction. The case shall be tried by the initial judge for the first time using the right procedures. The judge shall convict the defendant concerning the murder case as appropriate if there is sufficient information and evidence. The criminal shall be convicted and punishment declared as consistent with the provisions in the double jeopardy clause. The second case however shall have no legal ground on which the prosecution can retry the criminal concerning the second murder crime. Therefore in order not to violate the double jeopardy clause the second crime shall not be punished. The criminal shall be acquitted of the second crime especially if the evidence is the same as provided in the constitution. Therefore he shall not be tried after conviction over the same murder crime. “A state trial and a federal trial may be held for the murder of the same person without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution” (Anthony 1993).
References
Anthony J. (1993). “The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment: The Supreme Court’s Cursory Treatment of Underlying Conduct in Successive Prosecutions”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83 (4): 773–803.
Kanovitz, J. (2010). Constitutional law (12th ed). New Jersey: LexisNexis/Matthew
Schmidle, N. (2011). Three Trials for Murder. New York: Condé Naster.