Piling On
This seems to be another case of a prosecutor gone out of control soley as a publicity stunt. A state grand jury has indicted Michael Vick and his buddies in connection with the same acts for which he copped a plea in federal court. I am not a criminal lawyer, but if I am not mistaken, Vick's plea subsumes any state court charges with respect to the same acts, I assume a state prosecutor knows that, and these charges won't hold.
Not that I have much sympathy for Vick, but this would seem to be another case of knowing prosecutorial overreach. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
This seems to be another case of a prosecutor gone out of control soley as a publicity stunt. A state grand jury has indicted Michael Vick and his buddies in connection with the same acts for which he copped a plea in federal court. I am not a criminal lawyer, but if I am not mistaken, Vick's plea subsumes any state court charges with respect to the same acts, I assume a state prosecutor knows that, and these charges won't hold.
Not that I have much sympathy for Vick, but this would seem to be another case of knowing prosecutorial overreach. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Labels: Random Thoughts
posted by MoChassid @ 2:45 PM
20 Comments:
At 2:57 PM,
Joe Schick said…
Sort of like the charges against, OJ, wouldn't you agree?
At 3:18 PM,
MoChassid said…
Wasn't the second trial against OJ a civil suit?
Actually, the analogy I would make is to Meir Kahane's killer. The Feds came in with some denial of civil rights charge after the city screwed up the prosecution at the first trial.
At 4:56 PM,
Joe Schick said…
I'm referring to the current charges. Are you so busy buying Crocs that you're not familiar with it?
At 5:08 PM,
MoChassid said…
Duh....
I was thinking along the double jeopardy track...
Probably right. Keeping in mind that Vick killed dogs; OJ killed people.
Are you going to the Mets game tonight? I will be there.
At 6:32 PM,
Fern @ Life on the Balcony said…
The current charges against OJ are pretty normal. It's SOP to charge a defendant with pretty much anything the prosecution can think of so that there is plenty of room (and motivation) for plea bargaining.
With regard to Vick, I don't think the Feds can create a plea deal that eliminates the state's right to bring its own charges. That would violate states' rights, wouldn't it?
At 8:45 PM,
nyfunnyman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
At 8:50 PM,
nyfunnyman said…
as an astute 3rd year law student, allow me to point out that you are incorrect. b/c of the “Dual Sovereignty” idea in the 5th amendment Vick has no argument that he already plead guilty to the feds. i assume usually the fed and state work out who will prosecute someone and then if they plead guilty they do it to both, but here, there was obviously some tension b/w feds and state and therefore they went their separate ways in their prosecutions.
IMO, Vick can not simply proclaim double jeopardy- i dont wanna relive civ pro again- but b/c of the dual sovereignty idea, he still may be prosecuted
At 9:58 PM,
Joe Schick said…
"The current charges against OJ are pretty normal. It's SOP to charge a defendant with pretty much anything the prosecution can think of"
Exactly the problem re: prosecutorial abuse.
I'm not a supporter of O.J., but he's not guilty of most of the current charges.
At 6:06 AM,
MoChassid said…
Jow
What about my main point; can the state properly charge Vick?
At 7:55 AM,
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
At 8:00 AM,
NYfunnyman said…
i get no love?
At 9:17 AM,
MoChassid said…
nyfunnyman
No offense, but a third year law student? Are you kidding me? You may very well be correct but it's going to take more than a third year law stdent to convince me. I find it hard to believe that Vick's high-priced lawyers would have allowed him to be exposed to state court prosecution.
At 10:45 AM,
Joe Schick said…
moC,
I believe the funnyman is right, though I agree that a third year law student deserves disrespect.
Bad job by Vick's lawyers oin failing to make a global deal.
At 11:34 AM,
nyfunnyman said…
why do i deserve disrespect? maybe after i get a job you can disrespect me.
At 11:38 AM,
Joe Schick said…
funnyman,
Experienced (a/k/a embittered/jaded) lawyers like to disrespect law students, especially 3rd years.
At 11:45 AM,
nyfunnyman said…
i hear. IYH by me
At 12:03 PM,
Joe Schick said…
funnyman,
Why don't you go get a job instead of commenting on blogs?
Blogging is what you do after you have a job.
At 12:39 PM,
Anonymous said…
Law Blog has an answer courtesy of Columbia Law Professor Dan Richman: "It is indeed (not typical to have dual prosecution), but not unheard of. Usually where the locals and the feds each have an interest in a matter, the two will work out (sometime with loud voices) who will bring the prosecution. And where they don’t, a defendant willing to plead guilty can often work out a global agreement. Rare are the cases in which a turf war escalates into separate prosecutions, but they do happen. And because of the “dual sovereignty” doctrine, a defendant caught in such a situation has no constitutional recourse, since each jurisdiction is free to vindicate its “sovereign” interests as it sees fit.
At 12:56 PM,
MoChassid said…
Thanks, anon
So, in other words, Vick gets screwed because the feds and the state prosecutor are in a pissing match, each looking for publicity.
At 1:23 PM,
MoChassid said…
and, see this from a Va. lawyer:
"Check outsection 19.2-294 of the VA Code which provides in relevant part: “Furthermore, if the same act be a violation of both a state and a federal statue, a prosecution under the federal statue shall be a bar to a prosecution under the state statute.” and “For the purposes of this section , a prosecution under a federal statue shall be deemed to be commenced once jeopardy has attached.”
The state indictments seem to be based entirely on the “ACTS” set forth in the statement of facts in the federal case. It may be that the statement of facts was in fact worded by the attorneys to prevent a state prosecution. It will be interesting to read the defendants motions to dismiss the indictments."
Post a Comment
<< Home