Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 1 of 1
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Gamble V. U.S.: Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Stuart Banner, Paul Cassell
Gamble V. U.S.: Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Stuart Banner, Paul Cassell
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
In this case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, petitioner Gamble's brief demonstrates that there was no dual sovereignty doctrine before the mid-19th century. At the Founding and for several decades thereafter, a prosecution by one sovereign was understood to bar a subsequent prosecution by all other sovereigns. Dual sovereignty is thus contrary to the original meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Defendants today enjoy a weaker form of double jeopardy protection than they did when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
But that fact only raises three further questions. First why did the Court erroneously conclude in Bartkus v. …