Manafort could be affected by double jeopardy case before Supreme Court
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court hears a challenge Thursday to its long-standing rule that putting someone on trial more than once for the same crime does not violate the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy.
The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense, and most Americans are familiar with the term double jeopardy. But for more than 160 years, the Supreme Court has ruled that being prosecuted once by a state and again in federal court, or the other way around, for the same crime doesn't violate the provision because the states and the federal government are "separate sovereigns."
The case has attracted more than the usual attention because of the prospect that President Trump might pardon Paul Manafort , who faces prison time for violating federal fraud laws. A presidential pardon could keep him out of federal prison, but it would not free Manafort from being prosecuted on similar state charges. Overturning the rule allowing separate prosecutions for the same offenses, however, could work in his favor.
Then the local U.S. attorney charged him with violating a similar federal law. Because of the added federal conviction, Gamble's prison sentence was extended by nearly three years.
His lawyer, Louis Chaiten of Cleveland, says the nation's founders understood the protection against double jeopardy to ban any second prosecution for the same offense. Under English common law, the roots of American law, there was no "separate sovereigns" exception. A person could not be put on trial in England if already tried for the same offense in another country.
Congress has made the problem worse by dramatically expanding the number and scope of federal laws in recent years, Chaiten says, creating more duplication with state laws — something never envisioned in earlier court decisions that allowed double prosecutions.
But the Trump administration says past double jeopardy rulings allow the states and the federal government to pursue distinct interests without interfering with each other. Changing the current understanding by barring subsequent prosecutions would allow foreign court actions to preclude U.S. trials for crimes against Americans.
Besides, the Justice Department says, the Fifth Amendment bars more than one prosecution for the same offense, which refers not simply to a criminal act but also to breaking a specific law. Because state and federal laws differ, subsequent prosecutions don't violate the double jeopardy provision.
Though Gamble is asking the justices to abandon more than a century's worth of decisions, he has a chance of prevailing. Lower courts ruled against him, because they were bound by Supreme Court precedent. But the fact that the court agreed to take his appeal is a sign in his favor.
The court was originally scheduled to hear the case Wednesday, but Chief Justice John Roberts issued an order closing the court that day in observance of the national day of mourning for George H.W. Bush. The justices will issue their decision by late June.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
The reason Manafort faces jeopardy in both state and federal Courts is because of the well crafted charges Mueller created to be pardon-proof.
No Vic, the charges weren't "crafted" Manafort broke the laws of Virginia and, of the federal government, even a Trump supporter on the jury agreed that was true. There were several times that Manafort broke the law it wasn't one charge of bank fraud like your examples on charge of firearm possession, read the charges he was convicted of yourself,
Five counts of tax fraud, that isn't one time committing tax fraud, that is five times committing it. One count of failure to file a report of foreign bank and, financial accounts and, two counts of bank fraud, those that is actually three different charges three different times he did it. It's like someone robbing a convenience store, a bank and, a savings and, loan and, then trying to say he should only be charged for robbing one of them not all three.
Maybe you misunderstand me. I am not saying that the charges were unjustified, I'm talking about the way charges were brought and the plea deal.
I think Nick Ackerman (former prosecutor) described it well:
"By requiring Manafort to admit to all of the facts in both cases, the conviction is essentially “pardon proof” in the sense that if Trump ever pardoned Manafort, a state attorney general could take Manafort’s admissions from the plea and his interviews with the prosecutors and use them to indict Manafort on state charges including tax violations and money laundering. In his cooperation agreement Manafort expressly agreed that “any other party” (potentially a state attorney general) can use Manafort’s statement “in any criminal or civil proceeding.”
www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/mueller-s-paul-manafort-indictments-were-prosecutorial-masterpieces-trump-should-ncna911166
Manafort not only committed federal crimes he committed state crimes as well, the state of Virginia agreed not to press their case in deference to the federal charges, that doesn't mean that the state of Virginia can't charge Manafort for those state charges. Manafort committed tax fraud in the state of Virginia by not admitting his true worth when filing his state returns, that in and, of it self is a separate crime, it is not the same crime.
And in his plea deal with Mueller he had to admit to all the facts in both cases. If Trump pardons Manafort, the AG in Virginia can go after Manafort. Mark Herring is a Trump hating democrat and there is no doubt that is exactly what would happen.
And, Manafort should have thought of that before he lied to Mueller. Mark Herring isn't going to prosecute Manafort because he doesn't like Trump he will prosecute Manafort because Manafort broke the law.
Manafort violated his previous deal with Mueller, so there is no double jeopardy.
What about Manafort's admission of facts?
That goes out the window. He can choose to go to trial again or beg for leniency and hope that Mueller only tacks on a year or so to the previous deal. You don't violate a plea deal with someone like Mueller and expect to walk away unscathed.
What about them? According to the law they can be used against him in a court of law, it's that whole Miranda thingy.
espistte seems to be saying otherwise.
I think she's talking about the deal with Mueller, the confessions were made to a law enforcement official and, still stand, that is if Mueller's people Mirandized Manafort and, I don't see Mueller or, any of his people making the mistake of not doing it.
Maybe, I don't want to speak for her. If there is no objection I'll close this conversation for the night.
Some of these commentators need to take a law course....
If the deal is out, the admissions under the deal are out.... They would still have to prove his crimes in court. He is entitled to fifth amendment protection from incriminating himself..... if he did incriminate himself as part of a deal on a guilty plea, the deal goes away, the guilty plea goes away, and his fifth amendment rights are re-established....
Something happened here that Mueller is pressuring him for and as usual they are not being forthcoming......
My belief? he was never going to get a deal in the first place. The intent was to claim he isn't fully forthcoming which is a violation of the deal and slam him anyway.....
They will pull every dirty trick in the book to get at T-rump.... and I'm sure they have been all along.....
What this tells me, they have nothing on T-rump..... And never had anything on him... so they are hammering away at those that they caught on other unrelated things.... and still have nothing.
still waiting on the evidence....
Oh and another thing, A presidential pardon can be very specific or very broad, and yes cover state charges stemming from the same crime....
There is no such thing as a presidential pardon proof criminal charge.....
If a pardon is issued with criminal intent as in obstruction of justice, i.e. "witness tampering" by "dangling a pardon," such a particular event becomes thus "pardon proof."
The Supreme Court could overturn a pardon if it were unlawful. The Constitution says the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
Yup, I agree. It has become obvious.
Thus a pardon for Manafort would be totally proper after Mueller produces his report? In that case the investigation would be over.
There’s a debate over whether a sitting president can be prosecuted
He can - AFTER HE SERVES HIS TERM AS PRESIDENT. Perjury is also a crime, but not for Comey, Brennan, Clapper and McCabe. That is only to be used in perjury traps for former Trump associates.
One more thing. Impeachment is reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Republicans have been in control of the House, Senate, White House, DOJ … so is your implying a rigged game … you have no case.
Congress dosen't prosecute. Again I ask you why haven't the deep state individuals received equal justice?
DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
Double Jeopardy protections apply to THE SAME CHARGE/INDICTMENT … not separate charges brought against the same individual.
In Manafort's (et al) case, Federal crimes are subject to POTUS pardon, but charges/crimes that are not related to federal crimes … are not so subject.
Here's something else to consider; acceptance of a pardon is, by definition, acknowledgement-of-guilt regarding the pardoned conviction. AND ONCE PARDONED, the pardoned individual, if subpoenaed, CANNOT THEN PLEAD THE FIFTH!
Pay attention boys and girls.
Even if Trump pardons himself for specific crimes … once he leaves the office of POTUS … for whatever reason, other Trump crimes that (i.e.) Mueller might not formally charge NOW , COULD BE KEPT SEALED AND TRUMP UN-INDICTED … until he's out-of-office. At that time … only the sitting President could pardon a convicted Trump … either a Democrat who wouldn't, or, a Republican who would know why Gerald Ford wasn't elected (after pardoning Nixon).
And again …
Forgetting for a moment indictments for Manfort’s non-Federal crimes, here’s my take as to why Trump may not issue him a pardon.
Like Gerald Ford, even if Trump makes it to 2020, pardoning Manafort and others would likely cost him the election. That would mean, at best, Manafort would spend almost two years in prison with the looming prospect of a Trump indictment, impeachment or resignation, and thus, no pardon, and likely, Manafort spending the rest of his life in prison.
So, with that revelation, Manafort might well have his come to Jesus moment and beg Mueller for another chance at a plea deal, offering Trump’s ass as his bargaining chip.
As for any of Trump’s boys taking the 5th, shall I post the videos of Trump railing against folks who do that? Fucking hypocrite!
'If you're innocent, why are you taking the 5th?': Trump's comments about pleading the 5th could come back to bite him
For all those who continue to be miseducated at Donald Trump's College of Zeal-Without-Knowledge …
… he's playing you while he's playing everyone else. Consider saving face now because I believe that The LaLa Land of "fake news" you've been living in will appear even more embarrassing that it does even now.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The double jeopardy clause bars second prosecutions after either acquittal or conviction, and prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.
"In Manafort's (et al) case, Federal crimes are subject to POTUS pardon, but charges/crimes that are not related to federal crimes … are not so subject"
Um-hum...Have you read the article? The Court might change all that.
Might … I doubt it … but for NOW … I'll hold my position.
And Manafort has apparently committed numerous crimes … not all Federal, so, the article only applies to THE SAME CRIME … NOT DIFFERENT CRIMES SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT VENUES/JURISDICTIONS and LAWS.
What were the ones which were different?
Tomorrow the SCOTUS will consider the exception to the Fifth Amendment which allows both the federal government and states to bring successive prosecutions for the same crime. If the Court decides that this exception is no longer valid it will strengthen the Presidents hand in pardoning Paul Manafort and others. Why should the President consider such a thing? Liberals would immediately say to guarantee silence from Manafort & others.
There is another reason. The law as applied to Trump associates is not being applied to others.
Where are you getting this claim of double jeopardy and a SCOTUS ruling?
From the article
Manafort's plea deal was contingent on him staying out of trouble and telling the truth, but he didn't live up to that agreement, so the previous plea goes out the window. When that happens it means that legally he was never convicted or sentenced and as such double jeopardy doesn't attach.
Didn't you ever watch Law and Order?
The question is not really on whether the plea deal was violated or what happens to the deal. It is more a question of what happens to Manafort in Court via the 5th Amendment - should the Court decide that these cases constitute double jeopardy?
They are not in any way double jeopardy. He was never sentenced or convicted. He violated a voluntary plea deal because he lied.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal jury in Virginia convicted Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, on eight felony counts on Tuesday, but the judge declared a mistrial on the 10 other charges he faced.
He can be retried in those charges that the judge declared a mistrial without the question of double jeopardy.
But he WAS convicted on 8 felony counts. You said he was never convicted.
He wasn't convicted of the 10 other charges or the charges that were dropped for his cooperation. Since he violated his deal, they can charge him with all those and the 10 charges that didn't stick in the last trial in Virginia.
Is he being tried in another jurisdiction on those same 8 counts? That is what double jeopardy means.
Correct
Forgetting for a moment indictments for Manfort’s non-Federal crimes, here’s my take as to why Trump may not issue him a pardon.
Like Gerald Ford, even if Trump makes it to 2020, pardoning Manafort and others would likely cost him the election. That would mean, at best, Manafort would spend almost two years in prison with the prospect of a Trump indictment or impeachment and thus, no pardon, and likely, Manafort spending the rest of his life in prison.
So, with that revelation, Manafort has his come to Jesus moment and begs Mueller for another chance for a plea deal, offering Trump’s ass as his bargaining chip.
As for any of Trump’s boys taking the 5th, shall I post the videos of Trump railing against folks who do that? Fucking hypocrite!
"The darkside is strong in this place".....
Anger leads to hate......
And there is an overabundance of both here......
The haters are going to hate and keep on hating until they blow the whole edifice up.......
My question?
Is that all you Prog Libs have for the rest of us?
Hate? Cause if that is true we are already sunk.....
I'm a Progressive Lib regarding most issues … and I periodically make it known that when I debate herein … it's never personal. I am more than capable of making a case systematically with intensity, conviction and, even when expressing malice toward a wrong-headed idea, it's not about the individual whose idea/opinion I rebut.
And your one of the very few left my friend....
The rest have gone down the rabbit hole...
Or better yet, they are still chasin the white whale....
We need to continue our intense, yet, civil debates and friendship … hopefully as a standard to be emulated by others.
I'd say not by a long shot, no more that all conservative have nothing but hate for the progressives or liberals. WE are not really the problem, Our politicians and media are, they are the ones who profit in wealth and power from the division, we the people actually lose.
Hopefully sometime soon more and more of us will figure that out. Some already have on both sides and in the middle.
Today's Update:
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Gamble v. United States , a case that will decide whether a longstanding exception to the Constitutional protection against double jeopardy will remain in effect.
Terence Gamble was convicted of robbery in Alabama in 2008. As a convicted felon, Gamble was not permitted to own or possess a firearm under both federal and state laws. When pulled over for a traffic violation seven years later, Gamble was found to be in possession of a handgun and charged in Alabama as a “felon-in-possession” by state prosecutors. Concurrently, federal prosecutors charged Gamble under federal felon-in-possession laws. Gamble appealed his convictions, stating that the Constitutional protection from double jeopardy should have prevented him being tried twice for the same crime.
In his argument, Gamble presented evidence that the doctrine has been misunderstood and applied inconsistently with the precedent inherited from the English courts upon which it is based. Some justices seemed unmoved by this argument, however. Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that to dismiss the separate sovereigns doctrine would “greatly impact national security operations” by preventing the US from convicting individuals who were tried in other countries for crimes like terrorism even if the result was inconsistent with what the US. believed should have been the outcome. Likewise, Justice Stephen Breyer described it as a “opening a door” to blocking federal prosecution against individuals that committed crimes on Native American lands. However, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described the doctrine as a “double whammy” for individuals who could face inflated jail time for relatively minor offenses. Gamble’s position was also supported in amicus briefs by 36 states and various groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers .
The case is being widely watched for its potential impact on the Trump administration’s ability to issue pardons, though current political considerations were not discussed in the oral arguments Thursday. The president has repeatedly stated that he may pardon members of his government who are convicted of federal crimes. However, under the current separate sovereigns exemption, individual states would still be able to charge and convict administration officials who were pardoned by the president for federal crimes under state statutes.
Putting aside the Manafort obsession, it’s an interesting question that actually brings some unlikely alliances together. Ginsburg and Thomas both have found the federal state distinction troubling. I wonder who the other two justices who voted to even hear the case were.
This article will be updated should the Court make a decision on behalf of the complaint