Why Can't You Sue Somebody for the Same Act in Both State and Federal Court

A curious question

How would res judicata apply when involving a state v. Fed statute in a civil matter when a person can be tried under both federal and state laws independently for the same action and it not be considered double jeopardy? This would seem to be a reversal of what are the normal relaxation of protections within civil law compared to criminal law we have normally.

In other words; why doesn't the dual sovereignity doctrine apply to civil law as it does to criminal law?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

A curious question

How would res judicata apply when involving a state v. Fed statute in a civil matter when a person can be tried under both federal and state laws independently for the same action and it not be considered double jeopardy? This would seem to be a reversal of what are the normal relaxation of protections within civil law compared to criminal law we have normally.

In other words; why doesn't the dual sovereignity doctrine apply to civil law as it does to criminal law?

---

Because in the federal and state criminal cases the prosecuting parties are not the same: the prosecutor in federal criminal prosecution is the federal government and in the state prosecution it is the state prosecuting the defendant. The analogy in the civil arena would be a defendant sued by two different plaintiffs, which is not generally barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Instead, those doctrines generally only apply when the plaintiffs and defendants involved are the same. The reasoning here is that the same plaintiff should not bring against the same defendant the same claim or a similar claim based on the same set of facts in separate lawsuit when he had the chance to resolve all his claims in the first lawsuit. He doesn’t get multiple bites at the apple, in other words. But of course if a different plaintiff has the same claim to bring against the defendant he or she is in most cases not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel as a result of the previous case the other plaintiff already bought. There are some exceptions to that, but I’ll not get into that at the moment.

The entities suing are in essence the same. The state is Suing on behalf of the citizens of its state and the federal government is suing on behalf of its citizens. In essence, at least in part, the prosecution is undertaken on behalf of the same parties. Simply including a larger group of represented parties should not mean you can prosecute the person again.

To be analogous it would be like a person suing another and then being enjoined in a class action suit. At least for the plaintiff, it isn't allowed


the current situation could allow for a single person to be tried twice for committing one murder. Last i knew a person can only die once. Being able to be tried, convicted, and penalized for the same action twice is simply unjust.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

The entities suing are in essence the same.

---

No, they are not the same, in fact or in essence. That is precisely the reason the courts have held there is no double jeopardy when the feds and the state both prosecute for what amounts to the same crime. It is also why the feds and the states may each impose the same or similar taxes on the same taxpayers. They are two different sovereigns, each entitled to enforce its own laws.

Your argument that because the fiction is that the government is prosecuting on behalf of the citizens it represents and that some of the citizens are the same in the federal prosecution as in the state prosecution is not a logical one. I own my own professional corporation. I also own stock in Apple, along with millions of other shareholders. Applying your logic if my corporation sued a particular defendant then Apple could not also sue that defendant on the same or similar claim because the corporations are “in essence the same” because there is some overlap in ownership. But of course that is absurd. They are not the same just because I happen to be a shareholder of both. The same is true of applying that argument to the federal government and the states. They are clearly not the same. The people represented are not the same.

I get that you feel the dual prosecution of a defendant by the feds and the state is wrong and I respect that even though I don’t share your opinion. But you’d not win an argument in court against that doctrine based on this.

Your argument that because the fiction is that the government is prosecuting on behalf of the citizens it represents and that some of the citizens are the same in the federal prosecution as in the state prosecution is not a logical one. I own my own professional corporation. I also own stock in Apple, along with millions of other shareholders. Applying your logic if my corporation sued a particular defendant then Apple could not also sue that defendant on the same or similar claim because the corporations are “in essence the same” because there is some overlap in ownership. But of course that is absurd. They are not the same just because I happen to be a shareholder of both.

not even close to what I said or what i mean. Trying to apply a common link through a business obviously cannot apply. A government is a unique entity and attempting to compare it to a business and its shareholders is simply ignorant of understanding the government and its position in this.

My situation where a person attempts to sue another both as an individual and as a class is about as close as one can get to what i am saying and obviously a person cannot sue from both positions.

the government is the people. A corporation is a legal entity of its own. The government represents the citizens (even in court). A corporation does not represent its shareholders in court or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

not even close to what I said or what i mean. Trying to apply a common link through a business obviously cannot apply. A government is a unique entity and attempting to compare it to a business and its shareholders is simply ignorant of understanding the government and its position in this.

---

No, it is not ignorant of the differences between the two. Rather, you are glossing over the key thing which is the same in both instances: they are separate legal entities. Each corporation is legally a different legal entity from other corporations and legally distinct from its owners. The federal government is a separate legal entity from each state and from the U.S. citizens it represents. Each state government is a different legal entity from the federal government and its sister states, and the state government is also distinct from the citizens of that state. It is this that matters when looking at the double jeopardy issue, and you simply want to disregard that to meet your end of eliminating dual prosecution. But the courts can’t (and don’t) overlook that federal government is legally a separate entity from the states any more than they ignore that each corporation is legally distinct from each other, even if there is some overlap in the citizens they represent (in the case of government) or the shareholders they have (in the case of corporations.)

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

My situation where a person attempts to sue another both as an individual and as a class is about as close as one can get to what i am saying and obviously a person cannot sue from both positions.

---

But that analogy is obviously flawed. A class action is a lawsuit in which all the various plaintiffs in the class are participating in the same lawsuit. So if John Doe is a member of the class he is suing the defendant himself, he is just represented by the same lawyers that are representing every other member of the class. That is why John Doe cannot also sue the defendant on the same claim on his own if he participated as a member of the class action: it is the same person suing the defendant in each action, so claim preclusion would prevent him from suing separately later if he did not like the results of the class action claim.

But the federal and state governments are NOT the same legal person like John Doe in the above example so the class action analogy fails.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

The government represents the citizens (even in court). A corporation does not represent its shareholders in court or otherwise.

---

The government represents itself in court, the often said fiction that it represents the people in criminal cases not withstanding. It no more represents the citizens in court than a corporation represents its shareholders. But even if you buy into that fiction, it does not change the fact that the federal and state governments are legally separate entities and, moreover, that the citizens they represent are not the same. It’s exactly like my corporation and Apple in that regard.

The government doesn't represent the people? Really? Maybe you need to clue them.

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division One.
August 13, 1976.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES MANSON et al., Defendants and Appellants

if the government does not represent its constituents, i want to sue all the governments that have ever expressed control over me and taken action in the name of the people (especially me) because they did not have my permission to represent themselves as my agent and take action on my behalf (the people)

and again, trying to argue the corporation analogy is still ignoring the fact that while a corporation is not a corporation due to its shareholders, a government is in fact a government due to the citizens of the jurisdiction claimed by the government.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

The government doesn't represent the people? Really? Maybe you need to clue them.

---

If you are going to use case captions to make your argument (which is not a very good one to start out with) you still don't get there. The federal criminal prosecutions are captioned “United States v. _________ .” Note that it is not “The PEOPLE of the United States” that is listed as the prosecutor. So what do you make of that? The federal government doesn't advance the fiction of representing the people in the case captions for its cases. But what of it? Frankly, neither the case captions for California nor the ones for the federal government tell you anything meaningful for this issue. Some states style the prosecution in the name of the people, others in the name of the state itself.

But what does matter for this issue is that each state is a separate sovereign, as as the federal government a sovereign separate from the states. You have not rebutted that nor could you; that is a fundamental aspect of the American system of government. Federalism relies on it. Your argument that they are the same one that denies entire federalist structure of our country. Evidently you would like do away with the separate existence of the federal and state governments. So would you rather have us become 50 separate nations or do away with the states and have us all live under one uniform set of national laws on everything, including family law, probate, etc, that have been traditionally the province of states? Because those are your two choices if you wish to wipe away the federal system we have. But if you accept that we ought to have a federalist system, then you accept the separate nature of the federal and state governments.

The Supreme Court itself has made this crystal clear in cases going back over 150 years:

We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.

It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and may be punished by each.

Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959), quoting from Chief Justice Taft’s majority opinion in United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

And over 100 years earlier, the Supreme Court said much the same thing:

Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a state or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns, and may be liable to punishment for an infraction of the laws of either. The same act may be an offense or transgression of the laws of both. Thus, an assault upon the marshal of the United States and hindering him in the execution of legal process is a high offense against the United States, for which the perpetrator is liable to punishment, and the same act may be also a gross breach of the peace of the state, a riot, assault, or a murder, and subject the same person to a punishment under the state laws for a misdemeanor or felony. That either or both may if they see fit punish such an offender cannot be doubted. Yet it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offense, but only that by one act he has committed two offenses, for each of which he is justly punishable.

Moore v. People, 55 U.S. 14 How. 13 13 (1852).

So this principle that the federal and state governments are separate sovereigns and thus allowing dual prosecution for the same act that violates both a federal and state law goes back to some of the earliest days of our republic. You’ve not indicated any compelling counter argument to this that allow for overturning this principle. Yes, I know you don’t like it. But you’d have to change the Constitution to do away with it. And be careful what you wish for, because doing what you propose has consequences beyond just what happens to the defendant.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and again, trying to argue the corporation analogy is still ignoring the fact that while a corporation is not a corporation due to its shareholders, a government is in fact a government due to the citizens of the jurisdiction claimed by the government.

---

Really? Shareholders elect the board of directors that run the corporation and shareholders vote on significant matters for the corporation, like amending its charter. Voters elect the representatives that run the government and vote on significant matters like amending constitutions or issuing bonds. So how is a corporation really that much different in reflecting the views of its shareholders than a government is in representing the views of the voters? I don’t see the distinction you are trying to drawn. In any event, though, this tangent doesn’t help resolve the issue.

The reason my corporation analogy works is that it is based on the thing that does matter: corporations are separate legal entities, just like each state and the federal government are all separate legal entities. I can see why you want to keep diverting the discussion away from that central point because that point hurts your argument in trying to eliminate dual prosecution. But since the separate sovereignty of the federal and state governments is in fact the reason for allowing dual prosecution by the federal and state governments, you cannot get away from it.

I copied and pasted from the case itself. Yes it's titled [state] v. Whatever but when listing the parties is clearly stated "the people"

ill have to to check on the federal issue.

buy beyond that, especially given the Christian Judeo basis for our government, laws, and way of life, it is unconscionable to accept prosecuting the same person for the exact same crime more than once. It has nothing to do with multiple sovereignties. It is simply a matter of a person committing a crime and being punished for a crime, not punished as if they committed multiple crimes.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I copied and pasted from the case itself. Yes it's titled [state] v. Whatever but when listing the parties is clearly stated "the people"

ill have to to check on the federal issue.

---

Yes, for California prosecutions the case caption is styled in the name of the people. But for federal prosecutions the case caption is not styled in the name of the people at all. It is, as I stated, put as the “United States” versus the defendant. So the federal government does not adopt the pretense that the prosecution is in the name of the people. It instead makes it clear the prosecution is by the government. But as I said, it doesn’t matter because the styling of the case caption is meaningless in terms of any legal argument on the dual prosecution issue.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

buy beyond that, especially given the Christian Judeo basis for our government, laws, and way of life, it is unconscionable to accept prosecuting the same person for the exact same crime more than once. It has nothing to do with multiple sovereignties. It is simply a matter of a person committing a crime and being punished for a crime, not punished as if they committed multiple crimes.

---

That is not correct, either. The same act by the defendant violated not just one law, but two. He violated both the federal law and the state law by his actions, and he is being held to account for each violation. “Yet it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offense, but only that by one act he has committed two offenses, for each of which he is justly punishable.” Moore v. People, 55 U.S. 13, 14 How. 13 (1852). Both laws were on the books when the defendant committed the crime and the defendant knew or should have known he was violating two different laws by doing it. Being forewarned of that he committed both crimes anyway. That being the case, I do not see it as unjust that he be held to account for the violation of both. I do not see anything in the “Christian Judeo basis for our government, laws, and way of life” that conflict with that. Nor have the many courts that have examined the issue over the last century and half or more found it to be offensive. I respect your different opinion on it, but I don’t see the basis for your claim that it is an “unconscionable” practice that violates the fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded.

It's the same thing really. Of the people, by the people, for the people as that bearded guy once said.