The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, emphasis mine:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Double jeopardy is a legal concept that means a person can’t be tried for the same crime twice. Leading up to the revolution, there was an issue with British authorities charging colonists with trumped up charges just to harass them. And when they’d beat the charges, the authorities would just charge them with the same crime again, starting the entire process all over again. So they specifically listed a “no double jeopardy” clause in the constitution, because they had seen how a prosecutor could abuse the legal system to keep an innocent person perpetually locked up.
However, double jeopardy doesn’t typically protect someone across state and federal crimes. Courts have repeatedly upheld that you can be tried in both, because the two courts are entirely separate. So it’s interesting that they’re trying to use the double jeopardy argument to say that the state can’t charge him.
They’re not using the double jeopardy clause in the US constitution, because, as you stated, the case law on that doesn’t protect him from dual state and federal prosecution.
Instead, Mr. Mangione is moving to dismiss the state case on the basis of New York’s separate double jeopardy law. That law binds the state of New York, and prevents them from prosecuting something that has already been jeopardised at the federal level.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, emphasis mine:
Double jeopardy is a legal concept that means a person can’t be tried for the same crime twice. Leading up to the revolution, there was an issue with British authorities charging colonists with trumped up charges just to harass them. And when they’d beat the charges, the authorities would just charge them with the same crime again, starting the entire process all over again. So they specifically listed a “no double jeopardy” clause in the constitution, because they had seen how a prosecutor could abuse the legal system to keep an innocent person perpetually locked up.
However, double jeopardy doesn’t typically protect someone across state and federal crimes. Courts have repeatedly upheld that you can be tried in both, because the two courts are entirely separate. So it’s interesting that they’re trying to use the double jeopardy argument to say that the state can’t charge him.
They’re not using the double jeopardy clause in the US constitution, because, as you stated, the case law on that doesn’t protect him from dual state and federal prosecution.
Instead, Mr. Mangione is moving to dismiss the state case on the basis of New York’s separate double jeopardy law. That law binds the state of New York, and prevents them from prosecuting something that has already been jeopardised at the federal level.