A defendant was acquitted in a state court for charges of armed robbery. Federal authorities later charged the defendant with a federal crime based on the same conduct as the state robbery charge. The defendant moves to dismiss the federal charges, arguing the prosecution violates constitutional protections. How should the court rule?
The court should deny the motion because state and federal governments enforce their own laws independently, making a second prosecution permissible.
The court should grant the motion because trying the defendant for the same conduct twice infringes on protections preventing multiple trials for one offense.
The court should deny the motion because federal courts can prosecute offenses with a federal connection, even if there was a prior prosecution in a state court.
The court should grant the motion because the defendant has already been acquitted of identical charges in another trial.
The prohibition against double jeopardy prevents a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense by the same sovereign. However, under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, state and federal governments are recognized as separate entities capable of prosecuting offenses under their respective laws. Here, the federal charges do not violate double jeopardy protections, as the state and federal governments are independent of one another. The incorrect options misapply or ignore this principle: one incorrectly equates similar charges with double jeopardy, another focuses on federal jurisdiction without addressing the constitutional issue, and another fails to recognize the distinction between sovereign entities.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the dual-sovereignty doctrine?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does double jeopardy mean?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does federal jurisdiction apply in this scenario?