Monday, August 11, 2014

James Brady's Death and the Separate Sovereigns Doctrine

by Michael Dorf

Last week, James Brady died at the age of 73. Brady, then White House Press Secretary, was shot in 1981 by John Hinckley, who was attempting to assassinate President Reagan. Although Reagan suffered a punctured lung, following medical attention he recovered quickly. Brady, however, was permanently disabled; his speech was slurred and he needed a wheelchair. He and his wife Sarah spent much of the rest of his days working to tighten gun control laws. Obviously, they did not succeed in substantially reducing access to guns, but things could have been even worse were it not for the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (a federal law requiring background checks) and the ongoing efforts of the Brady Campaign. Many people in Jim Brady's circumstances would, quite understandably, devote the balance of their lives to their own comfort. He was a magnificent example of someone who found purpose in his own tragedy. So let me first say, rest in peace.

As is my wont, I also wish to raise a legal question that has been occasioned by Brady's death. The coroner in Northern Virginia ruled it a homicide. That determination immediately raised the question of whether Hinckley could be prosecuted for murder.

There are several obstacles to a murder prosecution, including the traditional "year and a day rule." It holds that in order for a defendant to be guilty of murder, the victim must die within a year and a day from the injury inflicted by the defendant. Here that obviously isn't met. If for some reason the year and a day rule were not applicable, then the prosecution would have to prove causation; the coroner's report apparently supports the conclusion that Brady's injuries shortened his life, so causation would be possible to prove. Eugene Volokh has a useful discussion of the year-and-a-day rule and other issues here.

The biggest obstacle, of course, is the fact that Hinckley was already tried--and found not guilty by reason of insanity--for the assassination attempt, including for the offense against Brady. And that means that double jeopardy almost certainly bars new charges for murder. Had the assassination attempt occurred in California (where two different women attempted to kill President Ford in September 1975) or Texas (where President Kennedy was killed), then there would be a loophole: Under the "separate sovereigns" doctrine, a prosecution on federal charges does not bar a subsequent prosecution on state charges, or vice-versa, even for the same conduct. For example, the officers who beat Rodney King were first acquitted on California charges (sparking the Los Angeles riots of 1992), but then tried on federal charges for the same conduct. There was no double jeopardy bar because each sovereign--here California and the federal government--had the power to prosecute violations of its own law.

But Hinckley shot Brady in the District of Columbia. As Volokh notes, Hinckley was charged, with respect to Brady, under D.C. law (although the trial was in federal court). If D.C. were a separate sovereign, then double jeopardy would not now bar murder charges under federal law. But as Volokh also notes, the D.C. Circuit has said that for double jeopardy purposes, D.C. and the federal government are not separate sovereigns. Although the case Volokh cites for that proposition does indeed say just that, it was not a double jeopardy case itself, so the statement is dicta. Moreover, that case in turn cites another D.C. Circuit case, which also made the point only in dicta. I did about 15 minutes of additional research and could find no case which squarely held that the separate sovereign exception to double jeopardy does not apply as between the District and the federal government.

Nonetheless, I agree with the strong dicta (and thus with Volokh's account of the law), at least given the key U.S. precedents. The case with the most relevant analysis is a 2004 Supreme Court ruling,
United States v. Lara. There the question was whether the dual sovereignty doctrine applies as between the federal government and a Native American tribe. Congress had expanded the scope of tribal court jurisdiction to include certain offenses committed on a reservation by members of other tribes. Lara was tried in tribal court and then charged for overlapping offenses in federal court. The question for resolution was whether the separate sovereign exception applied.

The SCOTUS said yes. In response to the defendant's argument that the tribe, in exercising power conferred by Congress, was effectively an arm of the federal government, the Court said that the relevant Act of Congress did not so much delegate power to the tribe as it lifted a prior prohibition on the tribe's exercise of its own sovereignty. Thus, the crucial distinction the Court drew was this: Where a sovereign or quasi-sovereign entity exercises authority delegated  by the federal government, it acts as the federal government and thus the separate sovereign exception does not apply; but where the sovereign or quasi-sovereign exercises its inherent sovereign power to prosecute, then the exception does apply.

It's not clear that the Court in Lara correctly applied the delegated/inherent distinction to the facts of that case, as Justice Souter (joined by Justice Scalia) argued in dissent. Nonetheless, application of the Lara distinction to D.C. pretty clearly confirms the D.C. Circuit dicta: As a territory of the United States, D.C. has no inherent sovereign power, and so can only exercise authority delegated by the federal government. Even when D.C. acts in accordance with the wishes of its residents pursuant to the Home Rule Act, its actions can be overturned by Congress, and Congress could, if it so wished, entirely abolish home rule in the District.

Still, one might legitimately question this result on fairness grounds--although usually the questioning comes from the other direction. Various commentators have suggested that the separate sovereign exception to double jeopardy is a loophole. Perhaps it makes sense, they say, to treat prosecution by a truly foreign sovereign as not triggering the double jeopardy protection, but states are not fully sovereign. Given the substantial overlap of federal and state crimes--and given the degree to which the state and federal government are integrated into a single system--these critics say that prosecution in one system should preclude prosecution in the other.

I think there is a good deal to be said for that criticism, but also something to be said, even on policy grounds, for the other side. At least where the question is whether a state prosecution bars a subsequent federal prosecution, the federal interest in protecting civil rights looms large. Incompetent or half-hearted prosecutions by state authorities should not be permitted to bar vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights. But it is not clear to me that it is possible to justify such a result--no separate sovereign doctrine except in civil rights cases--as a matter of constitutional law.

Finally, it is worth noting how the anomalous treatment of D.C. both over-protects and under-protects D.C. residents. D.C. license plates proclaim "Taxation Without Representation" in protest of the lack of congressional representation and the other ways in which D.C. lacks various powers of the states. The inapplicability of the separate sovereign exception could be thought to be a counterweight: one way in which D.C. residents get something that state residents lack. And it's true, that someone accused of committing a crime in D.C. does get something out of the inapplicability of the separate sovereign exception, namely, the knowledge that he only has to beat the rap once. But viewed from the perspective of crime victims, things look quite different. At least in cases where there is overlapping state and federal jurisdiction, a crime victim in a state who sees the alleged perpetrator beat the charges has a second chance at (what she believes is) justice in a second jurisdiction. Crime victims in D.C. are denied that opportunity. Now if only there were some way to characterize that injustice in a slogan that could fit on a license plate!

13 comments:

Joe said...

The "little something" D.C. gets reminds me of a recent Native American case where the liberals split -- Ginsburg didn't want to apply dubious immunity precedents but Sotomayor noted that be they bad or good, it was unfair to apply them in a way that was arguably unbalanced against the tribes.

http://indianyouth.org/news/detail/supreme-court-rules-state-cannot-sue-tribe-citing-sovereign-immunity

Anyway, the discussion here is interesting as usual though given the tangential connection between the shooting especially how long has passed, the idea at this late date that Hinckley should be prosecuted for murder is colloquially put somewhat asinine, even if it was not barred on other grounds.

But, since the discussion is probably more a sort of thought experiment, perhaps it being academic is academic.

奇堡比 said...

新女性徵信
外遇調查站
鴻海徵信
亞洲徵信
非凡徵信社
鳳凰徵信社
中華新女性徵信社
全國新女性徵信社
全省女人徵信有限公司
私家偵探超優網
女人感情會館-婚姻感情挽回徵信
女子偵探徵信網
女子國際徵信
外遇抓姦偵探社
女子徵信社
女人國際徵信
女子徵信社
台中縣徵信商業同業公會
成功科技器材
女人國際徵信社
女人國際徵信
三立徵信社-外遇
女人國際徵信
女人國際徵信
大同女人徵信聯盟
晚晴徵信

大愛 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

Evin Terna said...

There the question was whether the dual sovereignty doctrine applies as between the federal government and a Native American tribe. Congress had expanded the scope of tribal court jurisdiction to include certain offenses committed on a reservation by members of other tribes. Lara was tried in tribal court and then charged for overlapping offenses in federal court. The question for resolution was whether the separate sovereign exception applied.
美服lol代练
fifa 14 ultimate team coins
Cheap Elo Boost
cheap fifa 15 coins

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

高合金鋼 said...

熟知的外送茶坊壹些英雄模範,就是在平凡的工作約砲社團崗位上充分發揮人的創新能力,做好自己身邊的每壹件小事,外出按摩創造了做好的自己。“塑造壹個做好的自己”,這個目標人人都可以實現。妳茶訊只意識到自己是大自然的壹分子,一夜情網站堅信自己擁有“無限的能力”與“無限的可能”,按摩個人工作室這種堅定的信心能幫助妳創造和諧的心理、援-交line生理韻律,建立起自己理想的自我形象,外送茶坊體現自己人格行為應該具有的魅力。援交妹信心的力量是驚人的,它可以改變惡劣的現狀,援援造成令人難以相信的圓滿結局。援-交line擁有信心的人永遠擊不倒,指油壓他們是人生的勝利者。

高合金鋼 said...

自信心對於按摩全套壹個人的成功起著極其重要的推動作用。台北魚訊許多積極主動的人因為自信心的毀滅而台中一夜情變得消極被動起來。台北援交他們逐漸地對自己失去了信心。也許者開始與其他人暗示他們無能,一夜情留言板也許這開始於他們認為自己不能取得成就想法,一夜情或者這開始於他們認為自己不能勝任他們的本職工作的想法茶訊。很快,由於這種微妙的心理暗示作用,援交妹他們的創新精神遭外送茶到極大的打擊,他們就不再像以前台中一夜情壹樣充滿滿腔的熱情、勁頭十足地去從事任何事情了。他們就逐漸失去外送茶了大刀闊斧、雷厲風行的果斷行事的能力外送茶,他們很快就會對處理壹些鐘點情人重大事情變指油壓按摩得畏手畏腳,魚訊網站不敢作出決定。他們的思想很快就會變得動搖起來。因而他們就不會像一夜情論壇以前壹樣成為領導者,外約舒壓而變成為追隨者。

高合金鋼 said...

外約茶坊援交日記一夜情留言版提供台北一夜情台中一夜情,台北援交,一夜情援交,外約妹 ... 一夜情外約茶坊一夜情留言版提供台北一夜情,台北援交,指油壓一夜情援交,指油壓外約妹。外送茶留言版內容包羅萬象,可愛的台北不管是想要體驗指油壓一夜情或是想要優質辣妹的台北援交或者美女外送通通都有。

高合金鋼 said...

台中外送茶坊茶莊充滿夢幻的茶莊舒適度百分百有很大差別一夜情留言板,給自己個無束縛放鬆的感覺釋放您囤積已久的壓力鐘點情人!炮友總是在魚訊論壇極盡挑逗,在心裡的喝茶非彼茶,台中援交茶外送知道自己要什麼!都市中寧靜休閒的一角台中茶訊,來到這裡卸下您一身的疲憊援交妹!完全的放鬆身心靈!外送茶坊茶外賣超 ...

amine lahragui said...


thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه

aminos lahragui said...


thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلى الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورته حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق

aminos lahragui said...


thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلى الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورته حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق