UConn Law Professor Kiel Brennan-Marquez sees Gamble v. United States<\/em>, a new double jeopardy case recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, as a chance to eliminate a longstanding misuse of the nation\u2019s criminal justice system.<\/p>\n

The case seeks to overturn the conviction of Terance Gamble on a federal charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. When Gamble was charged by federal prosecutors\u2014which ultimately resulted in an additional three years of prison time\u2014he had already been convicted in Alabama for the same offense under state law.<\/p>\n

Normally, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits successive prosecutions for the same offense. Yet such prosecutions are allowed under an exception known as the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d doctrine, which exempts prosecutions carried out by different governmental entities\u2014in Gamble\u2019s case, the State of Alabama and the United States\u2014from double jeopardy protection.<\/p>\n

Brennan-Marquez and three other law professors submitted an amicus brief<\/a><\/em> to the Supreme Court in Gamble<\/em>, arguing that the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d exception, at least in federal-state cases like Gamble\u2019s, should be overturned. Their argument is simple. The exception was not intended by the framers of the Constitution; it relies on an erroneous view of the relationship between federal and state power; all past cases supporting it are weakly reasoned; and perhaps most importantly, it is unnecessary to serve the government\u2019s penal interests.<\/p>\n

A better approach, they write, would be to focus exclusively, but also more stringently, on what counts as the \u201csame offense.\u201d When a criminal act gives rise to multiple charges\u2014for example, a theft that involves both burglary and<\/em> the illegal possession of a firearm\u2014separate prosecutions should be allowed. But duplicative prosecutions should not, regardless of whether the federal government or a state government is the one bringing the charges.<\/p>\n

Following that analysis would help curb what Brennan-Marquez referred to as \u201cover-criminalization and overzealous prosecutorial decisions.\u201d Furthermore, while the double prosecution and double sentencing of Gamble are unjust, the case of a defendant who is acquitted and then tried again would be even worse.<\/p>\n

\u201cImagine,\u201d Brennan-Marquez said, \u201cif Mr. Gamble had exercised his constitutional right to a jury trial and been acquitted in Alabama, and the very next day, the federal government, unhappy with the result at trial, had decided to put him through the whole ordeal again.\u201d When it comes down to it, he continued, \u201cgovernment currently has two arrows in its quiver\u201d\u2014the \u201csame offense\u201d principle and the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d doctrine\u2014\u201cwhen it really should really only have one.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on December 6, 2018. Questions from the justices revealed some doubt about the dual sovereignty exception, but also concern about stare decisis, <\/em>a principle that defers to the weight of precedent. A decision is expected by June 2019.<\/p>\n

Brennan-Marquez co-wrote the brief with professors Stephen E. Henderson of the University of Oklahoma College of Law; George C. Thomas of Rutgers Law School and Michael J. Z. Mannheimer of Northern Kentucky University\u2019s Salmon P. Chase College of Law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

UConn Law Professor Kiel Brennan-Marquez sees Gamble v. United States, a new double jeopardy case recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, as a chance to eliminate a longstanding misuse of the nation\u2019s criminal justice system. The case seeks to overturn the conviction of Terance Gamble on a federal charge of being a felon in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":86,"featured_media":144802,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"wds_primary_category":0,"wds_primary_series":0,"wds_primary_attribution":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1857],"tags":[],"magazine-issues":[],"coauthors":[1856],"class_list":["post-144801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-law"],"pp_statuses_selecting_workflow":false,"pp_workflow_action":"current","pp_status_selection":"publish","acf":[],"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2024-12-02 16:32:02","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category"},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144801","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/users\/86"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=144801"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144801\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/media\/144802"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144801"},{"taxonomy":"magazine-issue","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/magazine-issues?post=144801"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=144801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}