Double Jeopardy

[00:00:00] This is Jeopardy! If Andy yearns for Brenda and Brenda cares about Charlene, who pines for Andy, the three of them form one of these. Kara. What is it? Threesome? No. Today we're exploring the riveting and often controversial principle of double jeopardy.

[00:00:29] And no, despite what the first audio clip may have been, we aren't covering my top ten favorite double jeopardy moments from the game show, Jeopardy! Even though I think that would make, personally, I think that would be a great episode. Instead, we're going over a constitutional safeguard

[00:00:45] that was meant to protect individuals from being tried twice for the same offense. Double Jeopardy, as we will come to find out, has been both a shield of justice and a tool for complex legal maneuvering. Imagine being tried for a crime,

[00:00:59] found not guilty, only to face prosecution again for the same act. Sounds unfair, right? That's what the double jeopardy clause aims to prevent. But the story doesn't end there. For the landmark United States v. Dixon, which reaffirmed the Blockburger test for determining same offense,

[00:01:17] to the dramatic twists in the OJ Simpson's civil trials post acquittal, and the recent Elrath v. Georgia, where new legal boundaries were tested, we'll uncover how this doctrine has evolved. We'll delve into the dual sovereignty doctrine that allowed both state and federal prosecutions in Heath v. Alabama,

[00:01:40] and how Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle clarified its limits. Discover the tension between justice and legal loopholes as we explore how prosecutors have found ways around double jeopardy protections, sometimes for better, and sometimes for worse.

[00:01:55] Get ready for a journey through some of the most pivotal cases in legal history, and see how double jeopardy has been a force for both good and manipulation in the American justice system. Stay tuned as we unravel the intricate dance of law and justice right here on

[00:02:11] Historical Quarrels. Welcome back to Historical Quarrels. I am your host, Tyler Eckhart. You're gonna have a fun one today, I'll tell you what. Talking about double jeopardy, this was actually a topic that was brought up to me by my wife, Madison.

[00:02:39] By the way, if you have not checked out her Instagram page for her book reviews, I highly recommend that you do. It's madbook underscore critique. She has quite a few followers. She reads a bunch of books, gives out good reviews of them. Highly recommend you check that out.

[00:02:58] As far as anything else that we're going to be covering today, I hope you enjoyed kind of like the new style of opening with the jeopardy. I just thought that'd be kind of funny to open up on.

[00:03:13] And yeah, no, I hope to kind of incorporate some elements like that going forward or bringing out ways to like mash clips. That have some sort of relevance to what I'm talking about today.

[00:03:29] I was really looking for a jeopardy, a jeopardy clip where OJ Simpson was the answer. But I was like, you know what? Fuck it. This is a comedy one. I joke about sex stuff all the time. So what is the threesome was was pretty funny.

[00:03:45] And it's just has jeopardy in the name. So, um, I think that's it. Jeopardy in the name. So, um, going forward, I'm going to be trying to try out, try out different things kind of like that.

[00:03:59] Let me know if you like that in the comments below or you can email me again at historicalquarles.gmail.com. But it's a it's going to be a fun one and an interesting one today. There's a lot to go over.

[00:04:12] We're going to be going over basically every double jeopardy case that I could find. Kind of what the case was, like briefly going over like what the original case was and then going over what it did for us essentially.

[00:04:27] Like how and either how double jeopardy was in effect or how it redefined what double jeopardy was. And just some interesting outcomes from that, too, just to, you know, just to see if this like helped some scumbag get away with murder.

[00:04:46] It may have in some cases or if they eventually did find new ways to get around double jeopardy. We'll be talking about that. So sit back, relax and get your lawyer caps on for today's episode of historical quarrels. You are listening to historical quarrels.

[00:05:07] Double Jeopardy is a procedural defense and legal principle enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offense.

[00:05:16] The relevant portion of the Fifth Amendment states, quote, nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, end quote. The principle of double jeopardy was intended to one protect against government abuse.

[00:05:30] This prevents the government from repeatedly prosecuting an individual for the same offense, which could lead to harassment and oppression. And two ensure finality.

[00:05:39] So it would provide legal finality and closure to individuals acquitted of charges, ensuring that they are not continually subjected to the anxiety and expense of multiple trials. And three prevent multiple punishments.

[00:05:52] So this would avoid multiple punishments for the same offense, thereby ensuring proportionality in the criminal justice system. The concept of double jeopardy has its roots in English common law and Roman law, which influenced its inclusion in the U.S. Constitution.

[00:06:06] It aims to balance the power of the state with the rights of individuals, preventing the misuse of prosecutorial power. Despite the clear protections offered by double jeopardy clause, lawyers and prosecutors have found ways to navigate and sometimes circumvent these protections.

[00:06:23] Some of the notable methods include number one, the dual sovereignty doctrine. And this doctrine allows different sovereign entities, e.g. state and federal governments or tribal and federal governments to prosecute an individual for the same conduct under their respective laws.

[00:06:40] For example, a person could be tried for the same crime in both state and federal courts without violating double jeopardy protections. This was reaffirmed in cases like Heath v Alabama in 1985 and Gamble v United States in 2019. And then there's number two, separate charges for the same conduct.

[00:07:00] Prosecutors may charge an individual with different offenses stemming from the same conduct, providing each charge requires proof of an additional fact. The others do not.

[00:07:13] This is based on the Blockberger test from Blockberger v United States, which determines whether separate charges constitute the same offense, quote unquote, the same offense. And then there's mistrials and retrials.

[00:07:25] So if a mistrial is declared due to a hung jury, I guess they're just really fucking hung or procedural issues. Could you imagine if that was like in the U.S. Constitution?

[00:07:36] Just like if the entire jury is full of men with cocks over 10 inches, we're going to have to conclude it was a mistrial because that is not a jury of peers. A jury of peers has at least the average length of cock. Right. 10 inches is way too big.

[00:07:54] That's man. I don't know how we even got that many people 10 inch dick in a jury. It's wild. It's a dumb joke. No, hung jury is a jury that can't make a reach decision or other procedural issues. So retrials may be permissible.

[00:08:14] However, as clarified in United States v Perez and United States v Deneats, retrials after mistrials are generally allowed unless the mistrial was provoked by prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke the defendant into requesting it.

[00:08:30] So if they were the prosecutors doing some sneaky shit to make the defendant request a mistrial or a retrial and they did on purpose, then you know there's there's some problems there. Appeals and reversals.

[00:08:51] So when a conviction is overturned on appeal due to procedural or legal errors, retrials are typically allowed. This was confirmed in cases like Berks v United States 1978, which held that an appellate or appellate reversal due to insufficient evidence constitutes an acquittal barring retrial.

[00:09:12] Then we have acquittals and judicial errors. So acquittals due to judicial errors generally bar retrials. However, as seen in Evans v Michigan in 2013, even mistaken acquittals due to a judge's error can lead to retrials.

[00:09:25] And so here we can see double jeopardy protections are a fundamental aspect of the US legal system, ensuring fairness and preventing government abuse.

[00:09:34] However, through doctrines like dual sovereignty and interpretations of what constitutes the quote unquote same offense, the legal system has developed mechanisms that allow for retrials and multiple prosecutions under specific circumstances.

[00:09:48] These interpretations strive to balance the rights of individuals with the need to address procedural errors and uphold justice. Damn it. So what they're trying to do trying to do there with that. So never very guess like the what a double jeopardy is.

[00:10:07] Now that we have that out of the way, let's go ahead and get into our timeline here with the first case of double jeopardy being in 1824 with United States v Perez. So in 1824, United States v Perez case was addressed whether a defendant could be retried after mistrial.

[00:10:28] The defendant, Perez was accused of piracy, a serious crime during that era. Not like today where piracy typically involves just downloading your favorite anime on online illegally because it's hard to find or hard to get streaming wise anywhere else. Back then they were real pirates.

[00:10:49] Yeah, we're cooler than some dude sitting at his computer just watching anime titties flap up and down. This trial ended in a hung jury unable to reach a unanimous verdict leading to a mistrial.

[00:11:05] And the defense argued that retrying Perez would violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy. The prosecution contended that retrial is necessary to achieve justice and Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the Supreme Court's review of the case.

[00:11:20] The evidence against Perez was substantial enough to bring him to trial but insufficient to secure a unanimous guilty verdict, which led to the mistrial.

[00:11:28] There's no detailed record of the specific defense lawyer or prosecution team due to the case's age and the nature of the Supreme Court's review process. I tried to look for it.

[00:11:38] The Supreme Court ruled that retrials are permissible after a mistrial caused by a hung jury, asserting that this does not violate the double jeopardy clause.

[00:11:49] The decision set a precedent that balanced the need for finality in criminal proceedings with ensuring unresolved cases could still be prosecuted justly, preventing procedural issues from obstructing the pursuit of justice.

[00:12:04] And then in 1833, the case of United States v. Wilson, which revolved around James Wilson who was convicted of robbing the United States mail, Wilson was accused of intercepting a mail carriage and stealing several bags of mail, which included valuable items and correspondence.

[00:12:24] The prosecution's case was built on several key pieces of evidence. There was eyewitness testimonies from passengers and the mail carrier who identified Wilson as the assailant.

[00:12:34] There's physical evidence such as items found in Wilson's possession that match the description of the stolen goods, and expert testimony that linked Wilson to the crime scene.

[00:12:43] Despite this seemingly strong evidence, Wilson's defense led by attorney Robert Goodloe Harper argued that the trial had been marred by significant procedural errors. Harper highlighted several key points. The jury was not properly instructed on the burden of proof.

[00:12:59] Certain key pieces of evidence were admitted without proper authentication, and defense was not allowed to cross-examine critical witnesses adequately. These errors, according to Harper, compromised Wilson's right to a fair trial. And then following Wilson's conviction, Harper filed an appeal on these grounds.

[00:13:16] The appeal was successful, and the conviction was overturned by a lower appeal it to court, which found merit in the defense's claims of the procedural errors.

[00:13:27] The case was then brought before the Supreme Court to address whether Wilson could be retried for the same crime without violating the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the case in the Supreme Court's review.

[00:13:40] The primary argument centered around the Double Jeopardy Clause and its application, the defense argued that retrying Wilson after his conviction was reversed would place him in double jeopardy, violating his constitutional rights.

[00:13:52] Which kind of makes sense, right? Because if his decision would be overturned and he was essentially found not guilty, well not necessarily not guilty, but the trial itself, man, this is where it does start to get kind of fucking complicated, right?

[00:14:09] So the trial itself was deemed to be, they ruled it as a mistrial, right? And they got the decision overturned. But he was not found guilty or guilty in either case. And so it's like does he need to be retried then at that point?

[00:14:28] And the prosecution that was represented by U.S. Attorney General Roger B. Taney countered that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not apply in this instance because the original trial was fundamentally flawed.

[00:14:40] And Taney argued that the reversal of Wilson's conviction was not an acquittal, but recognition of procedural mistakes that needed rectification. He asserted that the interests of justice required a retrial to ensure a fair and proper adjudication of the case, which I think that makes more sense to me.

[00:15:00] Like that makes more sense. It's like listen, if the trial itself was wrong, then it calls for a retrial and doesn't mean that you get away scot-free.

[00:15:11] And Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the court, ruled that Double Jeopardy does not prevent a retrial after a conviction has been reversed on appeal.

[00:15:19] The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause's purpose is to protect individuals from multiple prosecutions for the same offense, but it does not apply when a conviction is overturned due to legal errors.

[00:15:29] The ruling emphasized that a retrial in such circumstances serves to correct judicial mistakes and ensure the defendant receives a fair trial. Which, yeah, no, that's the correct decision to make right there, right?

[00:15:41] In the decision of the United States v. Wilson, said an important legal precedent, it clarified that retrials are permissible when convictions are overturned on appeal due to procedural or legal errors.

[00:15:51] This precedent ensures that defendants can challenge flawed convictions while allowing the justice system to correct mistakes and uphold the rule of law. The ruling balanced the protection of defendants rights against the necessity of rectifying judicial errors, reinforcing the integrity of the judicial process.

[00:16:07] Because could you imagine how like the mafia would have if they're like, yeah, no, no, no, Double Jeopardy applies here. Oh my God, the mob.

[00:16:17] So many criminals would just like basically fuck over the jury and make it so like no matter what there was going to be some sort of, you know, like the jury fucked up.

[00:16:30] So when they get put into prison and soon as they get it appealed and overturned, oh man, they would become immune to so much bullshit that they can get that they would would have been tried for. Not to get. I think that's a good thing that we did.

[00:16:44] Then we have an 1834. A year later, the United States v. Randon Bush, which was a case that involved John Randon Bush, who was acquitted in a federal trial for alleged embezzlement of funds from the United States Postal Service. It's always the postal service, man.

[00:17:02] What were the postal people like back back in the day? I need to do a bit more research there because it really feels like the US mail system. These guys were fucking either criminals.

[00:17:14] I mean, there's a bunch of people that are used for like FBI informants essentially or before it was called the FBI or the CIA. A bunch of a bunch of those people came from God damn postal service, which is nuts to me.

[00:17:30] Anyways, Randon Bush, a postal clerk, was accused of siphoning off postal funds over several months and the prosecution's evidence included discrepancies and financial records. Witness testimonies from colleagues who suspected him of misconduct and a substantial amount of missing funds that coincided with his tenure.

[00:17:46] And Randon Bush's defense attorney, Richard Bland Lee, argued that the discrepancies were due to clerical errors and that the missing funds could not be directly linked to Randon Bush. The defense also presented evidence of Randon Bush's otherwise unblemished record and character witnesses who vouched for his integrity.

[00:18:05] Furthermore, they highlighted procedural flaws in the investigation suggesting that the evidence was circumstantial and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Presiding over this case with Judge Henry Baldwin, despite the prosecution's efforts, the jury found Randon Bush not guilty, acquitting him of all charges.

[00:18:26] However, the federal government, dissatisfied with the outcome, sought to bring new charges based on additional evidence and a slightly different legal theory. This led to the question of whether Randon Bush could be prosecuted again for essentially the same offense. Which is exactly what's happening here.

[00:18:43] The case was brought before the Supreme Court where the defense argued that any further prosecution would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Which honestly here I do kind of agree with that.

[00:18:57] The prosecution contended that the new charges were based on different aspects of the alleged crime and thus did not constitute double jeopardy. Chief Justice John Marshall again, you can pop up here for up until we get to 1890s which is the next one.

[00:19:14] Delivered the opinion of the court ruling that an acquittal in a federal trial precludes any further prosecution for the same offense.

[00:19:22] The court emphasized that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being tried multiple times for the same crime, ensuring that once acquitted a defendant cannot be subjected to repeated prosecutions by the government seeking a different outcome.

[00:19:34] Man, John Marshall and I probably would have agreed on a bunch of shit based on the way this guy's ruling.

[00:19:40] So the ruling set a clear precedent that upheld the finality of acquittals and reinforced the principle that the government cannot circumvent an acquittal by bringing subsequent charges based on the same conduct.

[00:19:52] The decision underscored the importance of the Double Jeopardy Clause in protecting individuals from the stress and expense of successive prosecutions and ensuring the integrity of the judicial system by preventing potential abuse of power by the prosecution.

[00:20:09] Now as far as whether or not Randon Bush did it, who knows? Who knows? I mean, who knows if he actually did or didn't do it. It seems like he actually may have siphoned funds and that's why the federal government was going so hard after him.

[00:20:27] That being said though, motherfucker was ruled innocent so I kind of agree with John Marshall here in saying like listen, he was ruled innocent. At this point, you're going to find him for some other criminal offense.

[00:20:40] You know, like if he did it again, but like on a different time or I don't know just different, a different offense than the same one that you are trying to catch him on.

[00:20:51] So which is pretty funny, pretty, pretty goddamn funny that the federal government was like, I'm gonna I'm gonna get this guy who's trying to retire with obviously having our money. Damn him. But yeah, so then in 1896 we have Ball v United States.

[00:21:10] So in 1896 the case of Ball v United States had a crucial precedent in the interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The case involved three defendants, George Ball, Samuel Ball and Elizabeth Ball, the Ballgaggers as they were known who were accused of the murder of William H. Simpson.

[00:21:26] During their initial trial, George and Samuel Ball were acquitted but Elizabeth Ball was convicted. Elizabeth's conviction was later overturned due to a legal error prompting the government to seek retrial for all three defendants. And immediately I'm sorry you guys can see the problem here.

[00:21:44] The first two brothers were acquitted but due to Elizabeth Ball's conviction being overturned due to a legal error, it does bring into the question whether or not the whole trial falls under that as well. So even the you know them being acquitted.

[00:22:02] And the key legal issue in this case was whether George and Samuel Ball who had already been acquitted could be retried for the same crime due to the legal error, error identified in Elizabeth's conviction.

[00:22:13] The prosecution argued that the legal error in Elizabeth's case justified a retrial for all involved while the defense maintained that retrying George and Samuel would violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy protections. Which I don't know. That is a tough one because they were acquitted.

[00:22:30] This is this is the case where like someone actually was acquitted and then there was a legal error found later where someone else was convicted guilty. I don't know. This is this is complicated.

[00:22:42] This is where it would take me a while to kind of like rule out like whether or not it was justified enough.

[00:22:48] So the defense was reputed by attorney Charles Carter who argued that once the defendants quitted they cannot be tried for the same offense regardless of any errors that may have occurred during the trial of another defendant.

[00:22:59] The prosecution led by US Attorney Holmes Conrad contended that the interconnected nature of the case is warranted a retrial to ensure justice was fully served. The Supreme Court with Justice Henry Billings Brown writing the opinion ruled in favor of the defendants.

[00:23:15] The court held that the acquittal of George and Samuel Ball precluded any further prosecution for the same offense even though there was a legal error in the trial of their co-defendant Elizabeth.

[00:23:24] The court emphasized that the protection against Double Jeopardy is a fundamental right that ensures the finality and prevents the government from subjecting individuals to multiple trials for the same crime. I I don't know man. I'm kind of like up in the air on this one right.

[00:23:41] This this kind of feels like hey there's a legal error that constitutes a retrial for this person but I feel it's going to bring up a retrial then everyone involved honestly might need to be part of it again.

[00:23:54] But if they were already acquitted. Ah it's tough. I'm glad that they I think upholding the acquittal was the right move at the same time if they're I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know guys. This is where it gets tricky here.

[00:24:11] Another problem with this was the evidence against the balls was largely circumstantial circumstantial with no direct witnesses to the murder. The defense successfully cast down on the prosecution's case leading to the initial acquittals of George and Samuel.

[00:24:27] The legal error that led to Elizabeth's conviction being overturned was related to improper jury instructions that potentially biased the jury against her which is fair. Fair and then Chief Justice Melville Fuller presided over the Supreme Court during this decision.

[00:24:44] The ruling in ball v United States established a significant precedent then acquittal even if obtained obtained amid trial errors remains final and cannot be overturned by subsequent prosecution efforts.

[00:24:57] And then in 1906 we have the case of Burton v United States that involved Joseph Ralph Burton a US Senator from Kansas who was charged with accepting compensation for services rendered in matters before the United States Post Office Department.

[00:25:12] Which was a violation. God damn the post office. The post office is always up to something shady. God damn it. Anyways this was a violation of federal law. Burton was initially indicted on multiple counts of conspiracy and bribery.

[00:25:29] During his first trial the jury acquitted him on several counts but was unable to reach a verdict on the others leading to a mistrial on those specific charges. Subsequently the government sought to retry him on the remaining counts. At Burton's defense.

[00:25:43] The government argued that the indictment itself was flawed due to procedural errors and thus any subsequent trial would violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[00:25:54] Burton's defense attorney John H. Atwood considered that retrying Burton after an acquittal on some charges and a mistrial on others would be tantamount to double jeopardy.

[00:26:03] The prosecution led by US attorney Charles H. Robb argued that the faulty indictment did not preclude the government from pursuing a retrial on the counts where the jury had been hung. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court where Chief Justice Melville Fuller presided.

[00:26:19] The evidence against Burton included testimonies and financial records showing that he had received payments from a private company in exchange for using his influence to protect the company's interest in postal matters.

[00:26:29] The defense challenged the legitimacy of the indictment, finding procedural errors such as improper jury instructions and the manner in which the evidence was presented.

[00:26:38] And the Supreme Court would go on to rule in favor of Burton holding that the double jeopardy clause protects individuals from being retried after an acquittal even if the original indictment was flawed.

[00:26:49] So just again kind of reemphasize that it's like if you're going to indict someone get your shit right the first time. Because it definitely does seem like Burton was getting was being bribed. Yeah, that's that's fun. In 1922 we have the United States versus Lanza who involved Rosario Lanza.

[00:27:12] They were being prosecuted for manufacturing and selling alcohol during prohibition. Lanza had been convicted in a Washington state court for violating state liquor laws. Subsequently, he was also indicted in federal court under the Volstead Act which enforced the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol.

[00:27:29] Which was a bullshit rule if you guys remember from my alcohol episode. You know my feelings on it. Super dumb. Same thing with the drugs with this prohibiting drugs and having the war on drugs. God damn fucking Nixon.

[00:27:45] The central issue was whether prosecuting Lanza for the same conduct under both state and federal laws violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Lanza's defense attorney George F. Vanderveer argued that subjecting his client to multiple prosecutions for the same act constituted double jeopardy.

[00:28:03] And the prosecution led by US Attorney Robert C. Saunders contended that state and federal governments are separate sovereigns each with the authority to enforce its laws independently. The case reached the Supreme Court with Chief Justice William Howard Taft presiding.

[00:28:19] The evidence presented in both state and federal trials included testimonies from law enforcement officers who had raided Lanza's operations, confiscated alcohol, and documented the production of facilities. The defense highlighted the redundancy and potential harassment from facing multiple prosecutions for the same actions.

[00:28:36] The Supreme Court upheld the dual sovereignty doctrine, ruling that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit successive prosecutions by state and federal governments. Justice Edward Terry Sanford writing for the majority stated that each sovereign has the right to enforce its laws.

[00:28:52] And prosecuting a defendant under both jurisdictions for the same act does not constitute double jeopardy. Which is part of me kind of just screws that a little bit but. It is a way to get around it if you know someone is you know someone is guilty.

[00:29:10] So that's a it's a that's fine but this ruling would underscore the independence of state and federal legal systems and their concurrent power to regulate and enforce laws within the perspective domains their respective domains.

[00:29:22] And the court's decision reinforced the principle that the same act could be an offense against both state and federal governments and each could seek justice independently. And then in 1932 we have Blockburger v United States. Now you remember me talking about the Blockburger test here.

[00:29:40] This is where shit goes down. So in 1932 the case of Blockburger v United States centered around Samuel Blockburger. Who was charged with violating the Harrison narcotics act by making two sales of morphine not in their original stamped packages on separate occasions.

[00:30:06] Blockburger was indicted on multiple counts under the same statute each count corresponding to a separate sale. The primary legal issue was whether Blockburger's multiple offenses constituted the quote unquote same offense under the double jeopardy clause. Which would prevent separate prosecutions for each count.

[00:30:27] Blockburger's defense argued that prosecuting him for multiple violations of the same statute based on closely related actions constituted double jeopardy. The defense lawyer Abraham H. Fray contended that the separate accounts were based on the same continuous act and should be considered a single offense.

[00:30:47] The prosecution led by U.S. attorney William D. Mitchell argued that each sale constituted a distinct violation of the law as each act required proof of different facts. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes presided over the Supreme Court.

[00:31:02] The court's decision delivered by Justice George Sutherland established what became known as the quote unquote Blockburger test or quote unquote same elements test. According to this test offenses are considered separate if each statute requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not.

[00:31:21] In Blockburger's case each sale was a separate transaction requiring proof of a distinct act of selling narcotics without the required stamp. The evidence against Blockburger included detailed records of the sales and testimony from law enforcement officers who had conducted the sting operations.

[00:31:38] The court ruled that each sale was a separate offense under the statute and thus separate prosecutions did not violate the double jeopardy clause.

[00:31:47] This ruling set a significant precedent by clarifying that separate prosecutions for different offenses arising from the same act or transaction are permissible if each offense requires proof of an additional fact. The Blockburger test continues to be a crucial standard in double jeopardy jurisprudence. Just prudence.

[00:32:11] And just for you guys to know there is no record indicates that Samuel Blockburger went on to commit other crimes or was caught for something else after this case. I just figured that's important to add here.

[00:32:22] I started looking for that for each of these cases just to see if like because in this case he didn't get away with it right.

[00:32:28] He was he was convicted and yeah he got both charges here and I think this is a super important case as well because let's say you someone gets acquitted for murdering one person right. And then they go out and murder another person.

[00:32:50] It's the same act but it's a different person and so it requires different facts and different evidence be presented. Now if they got acquitted for that first one they could like never be retried for murder again basically.

[00:33:03] If he if let's say if they ruled in favor of this guy's thought process you know being like hey this is the same offense right. You guys can't charge him twice the same thing. I think this was a super good move here.

[00:33:22] In 1937 five years later we have Palko v Connecticut where Frank Palko was charged with first degree murder for killing two police officers during a robbery. Initially Palko was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. However the state of Connecticut appealed the conviction seeking a retrial.

[00:33:43] The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the appeal leading to a second trial where Palko was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death.

[00:33:51] A legal issue at the heart of the case was whether Palko's retrial and subsequent conviction for first degree murder violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[00:34:01] And Palko's defense attorney Thomas G. O'Connor argued that retrying Palko after his initial conviction constituted double jeopardy and was therefore unconstitutional. The prosecution represented by Connecticut attorney General Edward J. Donnelly argued that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to state prosecutions.

[00:34:24] They contended that the retrial was valid under state law and that the Constitution's protections against double jeopardy were not incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Which is some bullshit. Chief Justice Charles Evans used presented over the Supreme Court with Justice Benjamin Cardozo delivering the opinion.

[00:34:43] The court ruled against Palko holding that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

[00:34:51] And Justice Cardozo reasoned that the protections against double jeopardy were not fundamental rights essential to the concept of ordered liberty, thus not requiring incorporation to the states. Which is some bullshit in my opinion. The evidence against Palko included eyewitness testimonies and ballistic evidence linking him to the murders.

[00:35:13] The defense highlighted that the procedural irregularity of being tried twice for essentially the same crime and argued that it violated fundamental principles of justice, which it fucking did.

[00:35:23] If he was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life, at that point the guy's already convicted and he's in prison. I don't know. I understand wanting, especially like the families of police officers probably want him dead, but goddamn.

[00:35:39] It's like get that when you initially go for him, right? Like get that conviction. So dumb. So fucking dumb. I disagree with this. I very much disagree with this.

[00:35:55] So the court's decision in Palko v. Connecticut initially ruled that federal double jeopardy protections did not apply to state prosecutions. And this ruling was significant because it established a precedent that the Bill of Rights protections did automatically extend to state actions unless deemed fundamental to liberty.

[00:36:12] However, this precedent would later be overturned by the 1969 case of Benton v. Maryland, which we will go over. But this is what would fuck over a bunch of people later.

[00:36:27] So in 1947, the case of Louisiana ex-rel Francis v. Rez Weber involved Willie Francis, a 16 year old African American who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by electrocution. In 1946 when the execution was carried out, the electric chair malfunctioned due to faulty equipment and Francis survived the attempt.

[00:36:50] The state of Louisiana scheduled a second execution leading to a legal battle whether this constituted double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment. Which honestly, kinda fucking dead man.

[00:37:04] Willie Francis' defense was led by attorney Bertrand de Blanc who argued that subjecting Francis to a second execution attempt violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment as well as the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

[00:37:17] The defense contended that the experience of the failed execution and the anticipation of a second attempt inflicted significant psychological and physical suffering on Francis amounting to unconstitutional punishment.

[00:37:28] The prosecution represented by assistant attorney general Victor E. Schmidt maintained that the failed execution was an unfortunate accident and that the state was still obligated to carry out the lawful sentence of death.

[00:37:41] They argued that the double jeopardy clause did not apply because the sentence had not been fully executed and thus was not completed. The case reached the Supreme Court with Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson presiding.

[00:37:54] The evidence presented in the trial included testimonies from witnesses of the malfunctioned execution and technical details about the electric chair's failure.

[00:38:02] The court had to consider whether the psychological trauma and physical pain experienced by Francis constituted grounds for protection under the double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment clauses.

[00:38:13] In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a second attempt at execution did not constitute double jeopardy or cruel and unusual punishment. Which is some fucking bullshit man.

[00:38:25] I mean that's why it's a 5-4 decision though. At least four people were like yeah no it's fucking cruel man. He suffered enough.

[00:38:32] Justice Stanley Foreman Reed, writing for the majority reason that the initial execution attempt was a failure due to a mechanical malfunction and not the fault of the state or its officials. Which yeah no shit. It's not the fault of the state officials. That's not what they're arguing.

[00:38:52] But therefore retrying the execution did not violate constitutional protections. The dissenting opinions however argued that the psychological torment of a failed execution and the prospect of a second attempt should be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Which it 100% should be. It's fucking nuts man.

[00:39:09] This ruling set a significant precedent by clarifying that a failed execution due to mechanical issues does not preclude a subsequent execution attempt under the double jeopardy clause.

[00:39:18] The decision also highlighted the complexities involved in interpreting the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the context of capital punishment procedures. And Francis would go on to be executed on May 9th of 1947 when the second execution attempt was carried out successfully.

[00:39:37] It's some bullshit I'll tell you. And it's a 5-4 decision too. You have four people who are like yeah no that's cruel and five people who are like nah dog it's fine whatever kill them. So stupid. So stupid.

[00:39:58] And then in 1959 the case of Bartkus v Illinois who involved Bartkus who was prosecuted by the state of Illinois for bank robbery after being acquitted on similar charges in a federal court. Bartkus argued that this subsequent state prosecution violated double jeopardy.

[00:40:14] The prosecution represented by Illinois State Attorney John H. Lyle argued that the dual sovereignty doctrine allowed for separate prosecutions by state and federal governments for the same conduct because each government is separate sovereign with its own set of laws and interests to protect. As we know now.

[00:40:32] I hope you guys all feel like you're taking a course in law school right now. This is a in some detailed lawyers notes.

[00:40:43] Not really it's not. I'm not going to compare myself to a fucking law professor but fucking researching all this made me feel like I was researching for a double jeopardy trial essentially and just like prepping for it's like I have all these cases that I can bring up and be like listen so based off of this trial here where it was ruled in favor or not in favor.

[00:41:06] We know that the precedent set by the courts is that this guy should not be tried or this guy can definitely be tried again. I know some bullshit like that. The Supreme Court with Chief Justice Earl Warren presiding reviewed the case.

[00:41:24] The evidence against Bartkus and both the federal and state prosecutions include witness testimony surveillance footage and physical evidence tying him to the bank robbery. Despite his acquittal in federal court the state prosecution presented similar but independent evidence to prove his guilt under state law.

[00:41:39] Also kind of going back to the block burger test so they did have to get second second evidence. So extra extra evidence.

[00:41:53] The decision in a five to four decision the Supreme Court upheld the dual sovereignty doctrine ruling that the state prosecution following a federal acquittal did not violate the double jeopardy clause and Justice Felix Frankfurter writing for the majority stated that each sovereign has the authority to enforce his laws independently.

[00:42:13] Which I don't know man I I'm kind of not cool with it. I'm more like federal court should be where it's done.

[00:42:24] I understand sometimes it's needed to have the separate trials because you know federal like a trial can get fucked up but essentially gives it gives certain entities to two chances to get to get to the bottom of this case.

[00:42:43] They want to get someone they want to get which I think is I think is fucked up but this decision reaffirmed the principle of that the same conduct could be prosecuted separately by state and federal authorities without violating constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

[00:42:57] So it just keeps getting reaffirmed and fucking dual sovereignty dual sovereign is a huge it is huge I tell you.

[00:43:06] In 1962 with the case of Feng Fu v United States and Feng Fu along with two co-defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud goddamn mail fraud and other related offenses during their trial in a federal district court the judge directed a verdict of acquittal before the prosecution had completed presenting its case citing lack of sufficient evidence and perceived prosecutorial misconduct.

[00:43:34] The prosecution led by US attorney Robert F. Kennedy challenged the directed acquittal arguing that the judge's decision was erroneous and that the defendants should be retried.

[00:43:44] The key legal issue was whether an acquittal even if based on an erroneous judgment or procedural misstep by the judge could be reviewed and overturned allowing for retrial under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[00:43:55] Feng Fu's defense attorney David I. Shapiro argued that the directed acquittal was final and that retrying the defendants would violate the double jeopardy clause which protects which would have protected them here.

[00:44:10] And the evidence against Feng Fu included various documents and testimonies intended to show a pattern of fraudulent activity. However, the trial judge determined that the evidence presented was insufficient and that the prosecution had acted improperly.

[00:44:25] The Supreme Court with Chief Justice Earl Warren presiding reviewed the case and in a unanimous decision the court held that an acquittal even if directed by the trial judge before the prosecution finished presenting its case and potentially based on erroneous grounds could not be reviewed or retried.

[00:44:43] Justice Hugo Black writing for the court emphasized that the double jeopardy clause is a fundamental protection that ensures finality in criminal proceedings.

[00:44:52] So, you know, again, again, just be like, listen, you guys can't retry that. However, however, if you want to go ahead and have the state do it or if you want to have the federal government do it totally totally would work here. Okay. So,

[00:45:09] again, the ruling reaffirmed the principle of double jeopardy and protected Feng Fu and his other his other his buddies. So, and that's where we have that. In 1966, we have Backstrom v. Harold.

[00:45:24] This addressed the issue of civil commitment and following the completion of a criminal sentence, the petitioner Francis Backstrom had been convicted of assault and sentenced to prison.

[00:45:34] Either near the end of his prison term instead of being released to is transferred to a state mental institution for further confinement under New York civil commitment procedures.

[00:45:43] Backstrom argued that this transfer and subsequent commitment without a trial without a jury trial or adequate due process violated his constitutional rights. I think it's true.

[00:45:56] Particularly the Eagle protection clause of the 14th Amendment, his defense attorney Jacob H. Rosenberg considered that action was being denied the same procedural protections afforded to other individuals subjected to civil commitment, simply because he had been a prisoner.

[00:46:11] The prosecution led by New York State Attorney General Louis J. Lefkowitz maintained that the state's procedures for civil commitment of individuals nearing the end of their criminal sentences were lawful and necessary for public safety. They argued that Backstrom's mental state posed a danger, justifying his continued confinement.

[00:46:33] The Supreme Court, again with Chief Justice Earl Warren, he's still there. They're going to be there for a while. The review the case, the evidence presented included psychiatric evaluations indicating that Backstrom was considered dangerous due to his mental illness.

[00:46:49] The defense highlighted that other individuals facing civil commitment were entitled to a jury trial and other due process protections, which were denied to Backstrom because of his status as a prisoner.

[00:47:03] And in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Backstrom stating that the denial of a jury trial and due process protection solely based on his prisoner status violated the equal protection clause. Good. I agree. Completely does.

[00:47:19] Justice John Marshall Harlan II, writing for the court, emphasized that all individuals facing civil commitment, regardless of their criminal history, must be afforded the same procedural rights. Good. Fucking yeah, they should be.

[00:47:34] It doesn't matter if they're a fucking bastard. They should still be given the same rights as anyone else. If you're an evil bastard, you you're given the same rights and you should be given at the very least a jury trial.

[00:47:48] But again, if that if you have the evidence to prove the guy is fucking insane, you shouldn't be that worried about it.

[00:47:54] I know the defense might sometimes make it a little tricky, but for the most part, if someone's truly insane and has not shown any growth, you're probably good. And in 1969, we have North Carolina v. Pierce.

[00:48:12] This addressed the issue of whether sentencing after retrial could violate the double jeopardy clause, specifically focusing on whether an increased sentence constituted punitive retaliation. The case involved two separate defendants, Clifton Pierce and Harvey Simpson, both of whom had been convicted successfully had been convicted.

[00:48:31] They successfully appealed their convictions and were subsequently retried and reconvicted. Following their reconvictions, both defendants received harsher sentences than they had initially received. Oh, yeah, I think this is just some people got pissed off.

[00:48:46] Clifton Pierce was originally convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and sentenced to 12 to 15 years in prison. Wow, that's a lot longer than most people that he's here in Utah.

[00:49:01] If you commit if you have have assaults someone and with intent to commit rape, you sometimes just get fucking scot free, man. You'll walk out here in Utah kind of fucked up. Not going to lie. But sentence 12 to 15 years in prison is great.

[00:49:17] Great. After successfully appealing his conviction on constitutional grounds, he was retried, reconvicted and sentenced to a longer term of 15 to 20 years. Harvey Simpson faced a similar situation in his initial conviction for a separate crime.

[00:49:33] He's OK after his initial conviction for a separate crime was overturned and he received a harsher sentence upon retrial.

[00:49:41] And this central legal question was whether the increased sentences imposed after retrial constituted jumbled jeopardy or violated due process by punishing the defense defendants for exercising their rights to appeal.

[00:49:53] Pierce's and Simpson's defense attorneys argued that the harsher sentences were a form of punitive retaliation for having successfully appealed their original convictions, which I agree. I do think that's what happened here. And it's wrong. But same time, the dude was going to try and rape someone.

[00:50:13] So at the same time, I can't like it. It's probably better that he was kept in prison for a little longer anyways. Um, but you know, they contended that such unseemly sentencing practices discourage defendants from exercising their right to appeal, which is true.

[00:50:30] I just hate the fact that like a rapist was essentially what what brought this. It's like, yeah, right. Yeah, you're fucking right.

[00:50:39] The prosecution represented by the state of North Carolina argued that the increased sentences were justified based on the facts and circumstances presented at the retrial and were not intended to answer retaliation.

[00:50:49] They maintain that the sentencing judges had acted within their discretion and that the new sentences reflected the defendant's conduct and other relevant factors. Supreme Court would deliver a landmark decision.

[00:51:04] Justice Potter Stewart, writing for the majority held that while double jeopardy clause does not inherently prohibit an increased sentence after retrial, any increase in sentence must not be the result of judicial vindictiveness.

[00:51:17] The court established that the reasons for imposing a harsher sentence must be clearly articulated on the record based on the objective information that occurred after the original sentencing.

[00:51:27] The ruling in North Carolina v. Pierce thus held that sentencing after retrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause as long as it does not constitute punitive retaliation.

[00:51:37] This decision ensured that the defendants could appeal their convictions without any fear of vindictive retribution upon reconviction, thereby upholding the integrity of the appeal process and protecting defendants constitutional rights. And yeah, yeah. So, you know, that's happened again.

[00:51:57] Shitty that it happened with someone who is, you know, a rapist. So but that is the correct thing to do.

[00:52:06] If you are, I think everyone else, especially like if you're convicted, like drug charges of other shit, you shouldn't have to be afraid of, you know, appealing a decision.

[00:52:15] And then because you successfully appealed it, the prosecution gets all bitchy and is like, well, I'm going to sentence you to 20 extra years basically. And then 1969 we have Benton v. Maryland. This would address the issue of double jeopardy protections applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.

[00:52:38] The petitioner John Dahlmer Benton had been trying to convicted of both burglary and larceny in Maryland State Court. However, during the same trial he had been acquitted of larceny but found guilty of burglary.

[00:52:54] Benton appealed his burglary conviction and the Maryland Court of Appeals overturned it due to procedural errors. Upon retrial, Benton was once again charged with both burglary and larceny despite his prior acquittal on the larceny charge, which I think is wrong.

[00:53:12] Benton argued that being retried for larceny violated the double jeopardy clauses of the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from being tried twice. Again, on the same fence and Benton's defense attorney William H. Murphy Jr. Considered that retrying Benton for larceny constituted double jeopardy and was unconstitutional.

[00:53:33] The prosecution led by Maryland Attorney General Francis B. Birch argued that the double jeopardy clause did not apply to state prosecutions, which is based off of the president, kind of true. Which held that double jeopardy protections were not fundamental rights incorporated into the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

[00:53:53] The case reached the Supreme Court with Chief Justice Earl Warren presiding. The evidence presented included the procedural history of Benton's trials and the legal arguments surrounding the application of the double jeopardy clause.

[00:54:06] Justice Thurgood Marshall writing for the majority overturned the Palacal decision and held that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment is a fundamental right applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

[00:54:17] Finally, so the court ruled in favor of Benton stating that his retrial for larceny after being acquitted and violated the double jeopardy clause. Oh God, yeah, finally, finally shit happens.

[00:54:31] And this decision established that the protections against double jeopardy applied to state as well as federal prosecutions, ensuring that individuals could cannot be tried twice for the same offense by any jurisdiction within the United States.

[00:54:42] Thank God it only took you know, like over 100 years, but over like 100 and almost 50 years. Well, you know, that's fine. And then 1970 we have Ash V. Swenson and Ash was initially tried and acquitted for robbing one of the poker players.

[00:55:00] Donald Knight, Ash who was accused of participating in robbery during a poker game during Missouri would be tried and acquitted for robbing one of the poker players.

[00:55:13] And despite this acquittal, the state subsequently charged Ash with robbing another player in the same game, resulting in the legal challenge that would reach the Supreme Court. This is where the block burger test would come into play again. Because it is a different victim here.

[00:55:30] The prosecution would argue this is a separate offense because each charge involved a different victim. They contended that the acquittal for robbing one player did not preclude the state from prosecuting Ash for robbing another player in the same event.

[00:55:46] And the Supreme Court again would review this and the evidence presented, including testimonies from the robbery victims and other participants in the poker game.

[00:55:55] During the first trial, the jury found insufficient evidence to convict Ash of robbing Knight, essentially, essentially concluding that Ash was not one of the robbers. The defense argued that this acquittal should prevent any further prosecution related to the same robbery incident.

[00:56:10] And in a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ash, establishing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is part of the double jeopardy clause.

[00:56:20] Justice Potter Stewart, writing for the majority held that once a jury has determined the defendant was not present at the scene of the crime, the state cannot re-litigate that issue in a subsequent trial involving the same incident.

[00:56:34] So it has to be separate incidents. It's not just separate defendants but separate incidents here is what this would bring, which is super interesting. The court emphasized that the principle of collateral estoppel prevents prosecution from retrying a defendant on the same issue after an acquittal.

[00:56:55] And there's no detailed record that would indicate that Richard Ash went on to commit other crimes or was caught for something else after this case. The decision to Ashby Swenson remains a cornerstone in the interpretation of the double jeopardy clause, particularly in the context of collateral estoppel now.

[00:57:15] So again, you guys are learning some more legal terms here. And then in 1970 we have Waller v Florida. Similar to all the other ones, these ones would argue that the city and the state were separate entities, each with its own set of laws, and just to protect it.

[00:57:32] This is where it's interesting, where it's the city trying to do the dual sovereignty doctrine. And the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Waller, holding that the dual sovereignty doctrine does not apply to municipal and state prosecutions.

[00:57:49] Justice Thurgood Marshall writing for the court stated that municipalities are subdivisions of the state and thus prosecuting an individual in both municipal and state courts for the same offense does constitute double jeopardy. Which is, that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing.

[00:58:04] It does make it a little harder for prosecution, but I think if you're prosecuting someone, it should be difficult. You should have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this person committed a crime because you are going to change their life forever. So it should be this difficult.

[00:58:20] And if someone gets acquitted, is proven to not be guilty of that crime and they go on to commit other crimes, well then you go fucking after them for the other crimes. Okay? You get as much evidence you can for those other crimes.

[00:58:31] But if they don't commit other crimes, then I don't know, either like if they did do it, they learn their fucking lesson and are never gonna do it again anyways. Or they just didn't fucking do it. Not that hard, not that hard to really think about. All right.

[00:58:48] And that's where we're going to take a stopping point for this week. We'll continue on with the rest of the trials next week as we go over the OJ Simpson trial and a few other important cases. Quite a few. Quite a few.

[00:59:04] We'll even go over Michael Jackson's civil lawsuits as well. I mean, how those all worked out and some of the legal loopholes that these lawyers would work through to get to get to get a retrial or to they figured out like you can sue someone.

[00:59:21] So like if you're not trying to charge them with the same thing, you can sue them. That's another way around double jeopardy. So if you guys have enjoyed today's episode, please leave a comment. Like the episode, subscribe, leave a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify. Let me know.

[00:59:44] Let me know what you liked. If you think I can do better, do the same thing. Let me know what I can do better. And we'll go ahead and move into the end of today's episode and get into some updates. Thank you. You are listening to historical world's.

[01:00:05] I should really make the second part is like you have listened to historical quarrels. Thank you or something. I don't know. But yeah, guys, this has been a fun episode. I'm really, really excited for part two to go over a little bit more.

[01:00:17] Honestly, then these court cases, I want to do like a in-depth look at as for like for some true crime episodes just because some of the legal maneuvering and. Some of the cases also were interesting, and I know I'm just going over them briefly in this episode.

[01:00:33] The next couple of episodes and not giving it the full deep dive that I feel like some of them deserve.

[01:00:39] So if for the next few months you guys start seeing some more legal cases pop up, that is why it's because during the during the research for today's episode, I was like, man, I want to write about this more.

[01:00:53] I was like, no, no, no, just stick to the format that you're doing for each one. You kind of speed things along because there's just so many of them. It's like thirty six cases or something like that.

[01:01:05] So and this ended up being a let's see how many words an eighteen thousand word document. So it's but it is a lot of fun. I've learned a lot, I feel like about the double jeopardy clause and how everything works.

[01:01:22] And it's helped me understand how I how I would probably hold things if I were a judge and I'd probably not be the most fair judge ever at all. I'd be like, listen, this guy's a rapist. This guy's a child molester dead.

[01:01:38] Sorry, we don't even need a jury. Yeah, this guy's this guy's going to die. I'd probably not be a good judge or maybe I would be depending on your worldview.

[01:01:49] That being said, announcements for historical quarrels are that I'm still working on getting the new intros and outros for this show and for hard homies.

[01:02:00] Still kind of looking at a couple people on what's called Fiverr and a couple other sites to see who would essentially have like the best vibe or best fit for the shows make those. So I'm working on getting my camera angles set right.

[01:02:23] So when I start doing video recordings and I want to get my room kind of set up, I should say office set up so I'm more interesting stuff to kind of look at here for the quote unquote studio.

[01:02:37] But it's not like a studio studio, but what it is, you know, it's my room that I've turned into an office or studio. And yeah, I don't know. I've been having a lot of fun working on everything. I'm excited for next week to continue this episode.

[01:02:55] Just been a little busy, been busy, busy B and I feel like the jokes have taken a bit of a sidestep and it's been more just commentary on things. Hope that hasn't bothered anyone too much. I know some people prefer that. Some people might not prefer that.

[01:03:13] I probably will make more jokes in future episodes when I have more time just to kind of think about them and really, you know, I guess like have purpose with them. Maybe have like commentary with the jokes like the jokes themselves are commentary on something.

[01:03:33] So so I'm trying to do. Yeah, I know most of you are done with the episode usually by now. So that's to those of you that stuck around and listened. Thank you very much. Love you guys. But you guys have a good week.

[01:03:50] I'll see you next Monday or more double jeopardy doctrine and clauses. You guys have a great week. I love you all. Goodbye.