Results 1 to 10 of 12

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere near Canada
    Posts
    35,894

    Default Re: How Can You be Prosecuted in Federal Court After a State Prosecution for the Same

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    The example I used was bringing the claim in state court and then filing the same exact claim involving the same parties in federal court. It would apply just as well in the reverse. Or filing the same claim involving the same parties in two different states or in two different courts of the same state.



    One of the requirements for res judicata in civil litigation is that the parties to the case are the same. Thus, suppose that Amy purports to sell to Becky and Charles the Golden Gate Bridge. Amy of course does not own the Golden Gate Bridge. She committed fraud. One that one set of facts, there are two civil causes of action for fraud — Becky could sue Amy and Charles could sue Amy in separate court actions. Let’s say that Becky sues first and wins. Charles' lawsuit against Amy would not be barred by res judicata because he is not the same party that sued Becky in the first action. Becky was the party that sued Amy in the first action. Moreover, again on the same facts, the state could prosecute Amy for criminal fraud. Becky’s lawsuit against Amy would not bar that action either because the state is a different party and a criminal proceeding is a distinctly different kind of proceeding than a civil lawsuit.

    Turning now to applying double jeopardy to a prosecution on the same facts in both federal and state court, the principle of res judicata would not apply either because like the fraud Amy committed against both Becky and Charles with a single act, the criminal defendant has with one act violated the laws of two separate sovereign governments: the federal government and the state government. Viewed from a res judicata perspective, the federal government and the state are different parties bringing the claims, just as Becky and Charles are each different parties bringing the same civil fraud claim. Each sovereign has a significant interest in prosecuting its own criminal law violations, and that interest cannot be allowed to be frustrated simply because another sovereign gets the jump on it and prosecutes first.

    This aspect of double jeopardy has been discussed before on these boards. Someone tried to make the argument that the government is somehow different and that all levels of government in this country ought to be viewed as one gigantic government such that the federal and state prosecutions would in fact be done by the same party. But that is not how the U.S. is set up. Ours is a truly federal system: the states and the federal government are each independent sovereigns. The states can and do have differing laws and differing policies from the federal government. Because of that, the courts have recognized they are separate parties when it comes to criminal prosecution (and for civil lawsuits, too, of course) and thus double jeopardy does not preclude the prosecution by both of a crime nor would res judicata bar a lawsuit by both the federal and state government against the same defendant on the same set of facts. The same concept would apply to a prosecution by two different states for the same criminal act (though factually its harder to come up with those situations) as each state is a different party.

    The bottom line is that the concept of prosecuting a criminal defendant for the same crime in both federal and state courts would not violate the principles of res judicata because the prosecuting party (analogous to the plaintiff in a civil case) is different in the two prosecutions. Remember, the idea behind res judicata is to give any particular plaintiff no more than one bite at the apple in his/her claim against a particular defendant. It is not meant to deny the right of a different plaintiff to bring his/her claim. Double jeopardy is meant to allow a particular sovereign no more than one bite at the apple in its criminal prosecution of any particular defendant. It is not meant to deny the right of a different sovereign to prosecute that defendant for the violation of its law.
    This is the best explanation of res judicata I've ever read.

    I actually understand what you're saying and I cannot thank you enough!

    (sorry, jk - I'm not usually a hijacker )

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: How Can You be Prosecuted in Federal Court After a State Prosecution for the Same

    Quote Quoting Dogmatique
    View Post
    This is the best explanation of res judicata I've ever read.

    I actually understand what you're saying and I cannot thank you enough!

    (sorry, jk - I'm not usually a hijacker )
    at worst you hijacked a hijack as I did exactly that but I couldn't resist the opportunity to laud tm as well as ask what I did.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    26

    Default Re: How Can You be Prosecuted in Federal Court After a State Prosecution for the Same

    Repeating Doggie's comment. I finally actually get it. Thanks, Tax!

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Filing a Complaint: Why Can't You Sue Somebody for the Same Act in Both State and Federal Court
    By jk in forum Civil Procedure
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-23-2016, 02:11 PM
  2. Modification of Custody: Can You Appeal a State Supreme Court Custody Decision to Federal Court
    By oneflame in forum Child Custody, Support and Visitation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-15-2015, 06:27 PM
  3. Interstate Issues: How to Enforce a State Judgment in Federal Court
    By jenn3313 in forum Civil Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-18-2013, 10:10 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 07:14 PM
  5. Chapter 7: State Court Rules Differnt Than Federal Court
    By dr97457 in forum Bankruptcy Law
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-15-2008, 03:31 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources