Thanks. While I disagree with how one can be prosecuted by both state and federal entities for the same actions, I have no choice but to accept it. To me, for the purposes of
prosecution of an illegal act twice defines the statement; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
it doesn't say ; can't be put in jeopardy twice unless different government entities shall prosecute the crime. It simply says; can't be put in jeopardy for the same offense twice.
Obviously the current interpretation deems federal and state levels of prosecution to be two seperate offenses. I will never accept that as being a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. It's unjust and allows for some pretty sneaky games to be played with defendants.
I would see it no different than res judicata in a civil suit where one can choose different jurisdictions (one state over another) yet it cannot be prosecuted in a second one if it failed in the first. Yes, for the purposes of the criminal prosecution I do see "the gov" as a single entity. Prosecuting in state then federal courts or vice versa really is more a matter of venue shopping than prosecution of two seperate offenses and just as in a civil suit, you shouldn't get a second bite at the apple.
So yes, in my interpretarion, offense refers to the act itself, not simply the same essential statute but from a different level of government.
But this brings me to a question of a similar basis ;
can a person be prosecuted for an act by both a local government entity (such as a city court) under a city ordinance and also by the state under a state law for the same act when the ordinance and law are addressing the same act?

