Parallel Systems Of Justice

by Andrew Radding

Do you find it difficult to follow high profile cases in the media that appear to have multiple trials for the same matter? Often there is confusion over whether a double jeopardy violation exists. A brief explanation of our parallel systems of justice can help you to understand these issues.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals against being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. Although the concept is simple in application, it is not always easy to grasp.

The United States legal system is made up of several governments (sovereigns). The Federal Government has a system of laws as does each state. The Double Jeopardy concept travels hand in hand with the "Dual Sovereign Rule", and both must be considered together.

As a simple example, both the Federal Code and the laws of Maryland have statutes making it illegal to sell heroin. If a person is prosecuted by the federal government for the sale of a bag of heroin and is convicted (or acquitted) he cannot be tried again for the same offense in federal court. However, it is perfectly acceptable for the State’s Attorney for the county in which the sale allegedly took place, to charge the same person with heroin distribution under the Maryland law. This is possible because the federal and state governments are separate sovereigns and the literal interpretation of the Double Jeopardy clause is that you cannot be tried twice for the same offense, by the same sovereign.

Understanding this concept it becomes obvious that there was nothing improper, say, in the trial of the police officers in the Rodney King case in the federal court after their acquittal in the California state court. It is equally clear how the state of Oklahoma can now try Terry Nichols for murder in an attempt to obtain the death penalty even though the federal verdict and sentence provided otherwise.

A related concept much in the news was of course, the O.J. Simpson case. That matter however, involved the dichotomy between civil and criminal law.

Mr. Simpson was prosecuted by the State of California for the crime of murder. The party on the other side of that case was the State. The standard of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Mr. Simpson’s acquittal means the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did the act in question. He can never be tried for those murders again, even if irrefutable evidence is found that he committed the crime, or even if he were to confess.

Mr. Simpson was then sued civilly by the Goldman family and the family of his late wife, the Browns. That was an action for money damages, not for criminal punishment. The standard of proof that the Plaintiffs had to meet was "preponderance of the evidence," i.e., 50.1% of the evidence had to point to his having committed the acts in question. The jury found that the Plaintiffs had met that burden. Since this was not a criminal trial, but a civil trial involving money damages only, Mr. Simpson was not put in jeopardy twice for prosecution of the same crime.

As the reader can see, the relatively simple concept of "double jeopardy," given our dual and dueling (at times) systems of criminal and civil justice, is not always as easy to interpret as one would think.