texgunner
Member
You're absolutely right. Most anti-gun laws re.
Tex
BB guns are now Firearms (Minnesota court)
- Thread starter gunsmith
- Start date
- Status
You're absolutely right. Most anti-gun laws re.
Tex
criminal law and procedure
Hello all - I am back from the university where I was giving the final - in Criminal Law and Procedure!
I have taught crim law for close to 20 years now, and have been specializing in criminal law as both a government and a private attorney for a bit more than that - in Minnesota, as well. I am relatively new on THR, so hello all.
I will try to address the jeopardy issue: the state can appeal adverse pre-trial rulings. The characterization above is correct - the prosecution charged the defendant, the trial court judge threw the case out on a probable cause motion at a preliminary hearing (called an omnibus hearing in MN). The prosecutor appealed that and the court of appeals reversed the trial court judge's ruling. The 2 options for the defendant now are ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the case, or return to defend the charges at the trial court level.
If the case goes to the MN Supreme Court, if they affirm the Appeals Court - back to the trial level to defend the charges. If they reverse the appeals court and reinstate the trial court' dismissal, then that would be the end of it. This is a question of MN courts interpreting MN statutes, so it is unlikely that there would be any federal question that would allow further litigation in the federal courts.
So, at what point do we say that this is it - that the state is done? Double jeopardy under the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and similar provisions of various state constitutions, limits the prosecution from trying someone for the same offense twice. This not only prevents the state, with all it's resources, from harassing the defendant by forcing them to "run the gauntlet" more than once, it also prevents the re-litigation of cases and issues where there has been a final judgement. Jeopardy attaches when the jury is impaneled and sword; in the event of a court trial, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn.
And the observation about federal / state prosecutions is correct - many dual prosecutions appear to be for the same facts, but are for different offenses as defined by the applicable statutes. Lets say MN authorities arrest someone with 5 kilo of narcotics. They prosecute for possessing the 5 kilos with intent to sell, a 1st degree controlled substance crime in MN. Case fails for whatever reason and jury finds defendant not guilty. The state, irritated by this, refers the case to the US Atty for charges. Can they charge him? Well, not for simple possession of narcotics - but they might charge him with somethings like Interstate Transportation of Narcotics by Rail. I just made that one up, but you get the idea - and that would not be double jeopardy.
Hello all - I am back from the university where I was giving the final - in Criminal Law and Procedure!
I have taught crim law for close to 20 years now, and have been specializing in criminal law as both a government and a private attorney for a bit more than that - in Minnesota, as well. I am relatively new on THR, so hello all.
I will try to address the jeopardy issue: the state can appeal adverse pre-trial rulings. The characterization above is correct - the prosecution charged the defendant, the trial court judge threw the case out on a probable cause motion at a preliminary hearing (called an omnibus hearing in MN). The prosecutor appealed that and the court of appeals reversed the trial court judge's ruling. The 2 options for the defendant now are ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the case, or return to defend the charges at the trial court level.
If the case goes to the MN Supreme Court, if they affirm the Appeals Court - back to the trial level to defend the charges. If they reverse the appeals court and reinstate the trial court' dismissal, then that would be the end of it. This is a question of MN courts interpreting MN statutes, so it is unlikely that there would be any federal question that would allow further litigation in the federal courts.
So, at what point do we say that this is it - that the state is done? Double jeopardy under the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and similar provisions of various state constitutions, limits the prosecution from trying someone for the same offense twice. This not only prevents the state, with all it's resources, from harassing the defendant by forcing them to "run the gauntlet" more than once, it also prevents the re-litigation of cases and issues where there has been a final judgement. Jeopardy attaches when the jury is impaneled and sword; in the event of a court trial, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn.
And the observation about federal / state prosecutions is correct - many dual prosecutions appear to be for the same facts, but are for different offenses as defined by the applicable statutes. Lets say MN authorities arrest someone with 5 kilo of narcotics. They prosecute for possessing the 5 kilos with intent to sell, a 1st degree controlled substance crime in MN. Case fails for whatever reason and jury finds defendant not guilty. The state, irritated by this, refers the case to the US Atty for charges. Can they charge him? Well, not for simple possession of narcotics - but they might charge him with somethings like Interstate Transportation of Narcotics by Rail. I just made that one up, but you get the idea - and that would not be double jeopardy.
gunsmith
member
Thanks!
it's good to have folks like you on thr, everything I know about law I learned
on TV
Well I dated a lawyer, on those rare occasions that I won the debate I slept on the couch.
it's good to have folks like you on thr, everything I know about law I learned
on TV
Well I dated a lawyer, on those rare occasions that I won the debate I slept on the couch.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
