Sandy Berger - Double Jeopardy?

[Maine-ah]

Help me out here... I thought that once someone was tried/investigated/prosecuted for a crime you couldn't do it again...right?

So this ass hat is saying that it would be done by an oversight committee, which has nothing to do with double jeopardy and is perfectly legal.

So, help me pound down this cocksucker. :-)

[Maine-ah]

1. kick

anybody?

[Hepburn]

2. I am not sure...

...but I think the difference is between CIVIL and CRIMINAL penalties. Berger paid the price CRIMINALLY, but if is this is some form of CIVIL action for damages, then it is NOT barred by double jeopardy. And, it should not be barred.

For example: If someone walks up and intentionally and with malice socks you in the jaw, breaks your jaw and knocks teeth out ~~ he/she has broken the criminal law and there is debt to be paid to society for the conduct. Yes, in most criminal cases there is restitution for the damages done the victim, but that usually does not cover all the victim has been damaged. That is why the CIVIL law provides the remedies which allow a victim to attempt to make him/herself whole. Such things as pain, suffering and future meds would be covered whereas this is usually not addressed in the CRIMINAL courts.

I am not sure that is what is going on...but if it is a CIVIL or ADMINISTRATIVE action, then it has nothing to do with double jeopardy.

If you have a link about this, I would like to read it to see what exactly is going on. But my best guess is that it is a CIVIL and not a CRIMINAL matter in which Berger is involved.

And...it may be that what is suggested is not fair to Berger on the exact facts of his case ~~ but the law cannot rule out CIVIL actions due to the fact that many victims would not and could not be compensated under the CRIMINAL laws.

Hope I understood where you were going with this! :hi:

[Innocent Smith]

4. OJ Simpson

That is what happened with OJ. He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trail, but they were still able to go after him in the civil trail.

If I am remembering correctly the same sort of thing happened in the Rodney King case.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. There are different standards of "proof" in civil & criminal trials.

For a criminal conviction, you need proff "beyond a reasonable doubt," while civil suits are decided on the preponderance of the evidence. Thus there may have been a preponderance of evidence implicating OJ, so a civil suit against him would win, while that proff was not beyond a reasonable doubt, so the criminal case would fail.

[Maine-ah]

5. here's the link to the thread...

http://www.villagesoup.com/commletters/Letters.cfm?topicid=8127

[Innocent Smith]

6. Congress

Congress can pretty much investigate anything that it wants. It doesn't have any power to punish except in instances like member misconduct or judical impeachments. Many times it is just an opportunity for members to grandstand in front of the cameras.

[Maine-ah]

9. so why didn't they investigate at the time?

[Traveling_Home]

11. Asked to wait by prosecutors - seems like a ....

good idea in any case not to prejudice a jury. (That's the story I heard anyway).

;-)

[Maine-ah]

12. ok

so then, since they can't prosecute, this wouldn't be a bad thing to find out then would it?

[Gabi Hayes]

20. wrong, big time....look up the Hollywood Ten, for starters

[Innocent Smith]

22. Yeah I thought about HUAC and McCarthy when posting above

But my understanding is that after being cited for contempt of Congress it then has to be refered to a Grand Jury and then everything takes place in the judicial branch of government.

[Toots]

25. If a person is found not guilty of the crime you are accusing them of

Why should there be another trial? Once their innocence is proclaimed they should not have to be retried for the same offense even as a civil matter IMO. That is what double jeopardy is about. What you describe is not considered double jeopardy.

[Innocent Smith]

3. Trail

You have to have been found "not guilty" in a trial for double jeopardy to come into play.

[insanerepubs]

7. Isn't

DJ being tried for the same crime in the same jurisdiction?

[Maine-ah]

10. from dictionary:

the putting of a person on trial for an offense for which he or she has previously been put on trial under a valid charge : two adjudications for one offense

[Hepburn]

14. Not true...

...jeopardy attaches on the first day of trial in a criminal called when the first witness is called and sworn ~~ whether the defendant is found guilty or not guilty. A guilty plea to any crime also causes jeopardy to attach. It has nothing to do with the finding of guilt or innocence, it has to do with not being again chargeable with the exposure to criminal penalties for that conduct because the matter has been adjudicated. If a witness is called and sworn and the prosecuting atty dismisses the case at that point, it cannot ever be brought again based on those facts. In this case, the matter has been adjudicated by a dismissal.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '(T)he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: <1> a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; <2> a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and <3> multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm

There is more discussion at the link.

[Innocent Smith]

19. I was wrong

I realized after I posted that guilt or innocence wasn't important. Otherwise a prosecutor could do things like re-try someone found guilty to try to get a another harsher pushishment from a new jury.

Do you know what happens with a hung jury? Is there a time frame in which to have another trial? Just saw the former Cendant chairman go on trial for the third time after two hung trials.

[Hepburn]

21. On a hung jury...

except for murder charges, in general, felony crimes have a statute of limitation of three years. So, if there is a hung jury, the DA can decide whether or not to re-charge the defendant if the three years has not run, assuming it is not a murder case or some other exception to the general rule of three years. There has been no adjudication on the charge when the jury hangs ~~ although jeopardy has attached if there is a dismissal. A judgment of dismissal is considered an adjudication for the purposes of jeopardy attaching. Please note as well that there are some exceptions on the three year statute of limitiation on a lot of sex crimes, particular those where minors are the victims. Under certain circumstances with these types of crimes, even if the statute has run, it can be revived depending on certain circumstances.

Most of the rules in criminal cases are established by federal law since most of the rules are from cases that have gone up to the US Supremes. That is why I can say that there is a generally a three year statute on charging in most felong cases ~~ with murder and sex crimes being the most notable exceptions. I do believe that most state are consistent with Calif on murder charges ~~ no statute of limitation. I am not sure about statutes dealing with sex crimes in other states because I have only practiced in Calif. Also: IIRC, on misdemeanors in Calif, under People v. Serna, longer than one year between the arrest and the DA filing a complaint is presumptively prejudical and 6th Amend rights attach. Basically, that means that a misdemeanor case is gone if the DA does not file on it within one year. But misd cases rarely if ever go to trial ~~ so your hung jury question really does not apply to these types of cases.

Bottom line: If the statute has not run, the DA can re-file a complaint based on the same alleged crime if the jury hangs.

[Innocent Smith]

23. Thanks very much

Very informative. I love learning things from people that are much more knowledgeable about subjects than I am. :)

[Hepburn]

24. You are very welcome!

And..thank you for the nice compliment! :hi:

[johnfunk]

8. Berger should file a counter-complaint, and maybe even a cross-complaint..

... if evidence that this initiative is being helped by right wing organizations. Cockroaches flee when the light shines on them...

[Igel]

15. But what "crime"?

For example, if an act is illegal both at the state and federal level, those are different charges in different courts. I personally consider that to be double jeopardy, but the US court system, right up to the state and US supreme courts, disagrees with me.

If the crime was intended to terrorize people, then there's also the charge of terrorism. If the victim was a witness and it was to keep him/her from testifying, there's obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

Separate charges: if you try the guy for murder, and there's insufficient evidence, he walks; find more evidence, come back with a different charge, at a different level.

And this is entirely different from the criminal/civil distinction.

Congressional investigations are separate, but IIRC correctly they can feed criminal investigations. So suppose that Berger was removing records that would falsify his or Clinton's testimony, and sufficient evidence of this comes to light? Well, he's pled guilty to removing records contra his classification status. But not to perjury. And, if there's evidence that the plea bargain was based on fradulent information ...

[merh]

16. They can investigate all they want

But in so doing, they make a mockery of their Justice Department (the Executive Branch is in charge of that after all) and they poke ole Alberto in the eye and doubt the investigation by the FBI.

It is a waste of money as the matter has been investigated and prosecuted, but what's new, this bunch doesn't care about wasting money.

This investigation is just a bunch of tadpoles muddying up what little water they have left to swim in, they are trying to take advantage of the mud hole before it dries up.

[AngryAmish]

17. He's right, you are wrong.

Enron folks testified before congress. Should they now be immune from prsecution.

Now Ollie North got use immunity testifying for congress. He told all. He was prosecuted but the conviction was upheld because of the overly broad immunity deal.

[NewJeffCT]

18. They investigated Vince Foster's death 6 times

to see if they could tie Bill Clinton to it. finally, even Tony Scalia said no the last time.