Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Timothy Baily Hennis - US Military Death Row

  1. #21
    Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertH View Post
    I learned something new today...
    Me too ...

    Regardless of the issue of what penalty he should have got on conviction, and not having much sympathy for Mr Hennis, I'm uncomfortable with the conclusion. I would imagine the Founding Fathers would have seen this as a clear breach of the 5th Amendment.

  2. #22
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    I disagree. The Fifth Amendment originally applied only to federal law. It was only more than a hundred years later that it was applied to state law by the 14th Amendment. I've read nothing to indicate that the Founding Fathers would have had an issue with different sovereigns carrying out a prosecution for the same crime.

  3. #23
    Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    38
    Sorry, my fault for expressing myself badly.

    I imagine that all states had a double jeopardy clause in the same (or pretty much the same) terms as the 5th Amendment ("nor be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense." from s8 Virginia). I suppose what I meant was that this was exactly the sort of behaviour from the British government that caused the double jeopardy clause to be in the various State and Federal Constitutions. I'll need to check my history, but I would be very surprised if they would have been happy with the 'separate sovereigns' doctrine. It's not a complete analogy, but my understanding of English law at the time is that an acquittal in England would have been a bar in Scotland.

    What I should have said is that the decision is correct following Lanza, but that Lanza is wrong...

    Given the amount of things covered by the Federal Criminal Code, the protection offered by the double jeopardy clause is much watered down.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Member Jeffects's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by couldheshebeinnocent? View Post
    Yes,RobertH,because I am sure that the US definition of double jeopardy applies to all US courts (which also means those acquitted in a state court cannot be tried in a federal court for the same offence,and vice versa).
    Yeah? Tell that to the Cops involved in the Rodney King beating. They just circumvented Double Jeopardy by comming up with different charges for the same incident.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertH View Post
    I just cant help but think that SCOTUS would want to hear the double jeopardy argument here. Don't get me wrong if he did it, he should be punished, but I think there is a constitutionality issue here.
    I didn't read all the posts here, But I believe he was released on appeal. I think double jeopardy only applies when found "Not guilty".
    Attached Images Attached Images

  5. #25
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffects View Post
    Yeah? Tell that to the Cops involved in the Rodney King beating. They just circumvented Double Jeopardy by comming up with different charges for the same incident.
    The federal government could have filed exactly the same charges against the officers as the State of California had and it still wouldn't have been a violation of the Fifth Amendment's double-jeopardy proscription.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Member Jeffects's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    238
    But as I recall, they (for obvious reasons) filed totally different charges that fell under their jurisdiction. (violating his civil rights). What is your source to make this claim? I think you are mistaken.

    The Federal Government has limited jurisdiction in terms of the State Laws. Any law within a States Constitution that doesn't violate the Federal Constitution, is at their discretion. I can go on and on about Civics 101, but don't want to bore myself. What facts do you have to buttress your claim?

    There are hundreds of State laws the Federal Government has NO jurisdiction over. They can't legally get involved unless it crosses into other States or violates the United States Constitution. I would love to see justification of your claim, or a retraction of your comment.

    Our Founding Fathers were quite specific, Any "right" or law that wasn't specifically designated under the United States Constitution, was under The States control and their Constitution. The States have limits, but are considered Soveriegn.

    Our Civil War was about States rights and the amount of control Washington D.C. had over them. Not slavery, Abolishment was just a fortunate end result of an argument that had been fermenting for decades.
    Last edited by Jeffects; 06-15-2012 at 01:20 AM.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Member RobertH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    121
    He was acquitted on appeal. That is why I was questioning the double jeopardy. But doing some research, I found the it didn't apply.

  8. #28
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffects View Post
    But as I recall, they (for obvious reasons) filed totally different charges that fell under their jurisdiction. (violating his civil rights). What is your source to make this claim? I think you are mistaken.

    The Federal Government has limited jurisdiction in terms of the State Laws. Any law within a States Constitution that doesn't violate the Federal Constitution, is at their discretion. I can go on and on about Civics 101, but don't want to bore myself. What facts do you have to buttress your claim?

    There are hundreds of State laws the Federal Government has NO jurisdiction over. They can't legally get involved unless it crosses into other States or violates the United States Constitution. I would love to see justification of your claim, or a retraction of your comment.

    Our Founding Fathers were quite specific, Any "right" or law that wasn't specifically designated under the United States Constitution, was under The States control and their Constitution. The States have limits, but are considered Soveriegn.

    Our Civil War was about States rights and the amount of control Washington D.C. had over them. Not slavery, Abolishment was just a fortunate end result of an argument that had been fermenting for decades.
    Pardon me. I didn't get my point across with precision. With respect to the King case alone, you're quite right. The feds' jurisdiction was based on civil rights violations and not on assault and battery or malicious wounding or whatever they were actually charged with by the State of California. What I was unsuccessfully trying to convey was that, constitutionally, if a federal law affords federal jurisdiction over the same underlying crime as a state law, then the feds can prosecute somebody for basically the same crime.

    Say, for example, someone murders a federal judge in Ohio. The murder of a sitting federal judge is a federal crime, while the murder of anyone in Ohio is a state crime in Ohio. So, the defendant in such a case could be tried by both the feds and Ohio for what is the same crime--murder.

    If federal and state jurisdictions overlap for what is the same crime, then, constitutionally speaking, a defendant can face two separate prosecutions by two different sovereigns.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Member Jeffects's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    238
    Thanks for your clarification. That makes sense to me. And, as in this case, If they are in the Military, they fall under UCMJ, which has a seperate type of legal standard/system, which to my understanding, stands alone as well.

  10. #30
    Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    38
    Thanks for that. I think that it is a shame that the SC didn't take it, if only to see what the 'originalists' made of it! Given that it was clearly the law when the constitution was written that an acquittal/conviction from a foreign court gives rise to a plea in bar (Roche, 1 Leach 134, 168 Eng.Rep. 169 (1775)) and the words of the 5th Amendment, it's pretty clear that the framers wouldn't have agreed with a 'dual sovereignty' approach to double jeopardy.

    Don't know what other people think, but it does seem strange that a jury's verdict in North Carolina carries more weight in England than it does in South Carolina? As distasteful as it seems on the face of it, I don't think Hennis should have been prosecuted again.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •