About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

41 UCLA L. Rev. 693 (1993-1994)
The Rodney King Trials and the Double Jeopardy Clause: Some Observations on Original Meaning and the ACLU's Schizophrenic Views of the Dual Sovereign Doctrine

handle is hein.journals/uclalr41 and id is 717 raw text is: THE RODNEY KING TRIALS AND THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON ORIGINAL MEANING AND THE ACLU's SCHIZOPHRENIC VIEWS OF THE DUAL SOVEREIGN DOCTRINE Paul G. Cassell* INTRODUCTION In August 1992, the United States Department of Justice filed federal civil rights charges against four police officers for assaulting Rodney G. King, even though they had been acquitted in an earlier state trial.' The Depart- ment's decision was generally understood to follow constitutional principles of double jeopardy. While the Double Jeopardy Clause provides nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,2 the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that criminal actions brought by different sovereigns are not the same offence and thus do not violate the Fifth Amendment.3 The district judge presiding over the officers' federal trial reached the same conclusion.4 Thus, the officers were tried twice on what, at first glance, appear to be essentially the same charges. The use of the dual sovereign doctrine to retry the officers was not without its critics. The National Board of the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, condemned the retrial as a violation of double jeopardy, * Assoc. Prof. of Law, Univ. of Utah College of Law. Formerly Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Dept. of Justice 1988-91; Assoc. Deputy Atty. Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice 1986-88. B.A., 1981, Stanford Univ.; J.D. 1984, Stanford Univ. My colleagues Lee Edward Teitelbaum, Ronald N. Boyce, Robert L. Flores, Lionel H. Frankel, and Wayne McCormack offered helpful comments on an earlier draft. Clark W. Sabey and Cindy Crane provided valuable research assistance, as did the Univ. of Utah College of Law librarians and their assistants. I am also appreciative of support from the College of Law Excellence in Teaching and Research Fund. 1. For a description of the course of the proceedings in the King case, see generally Laurie L. Levenson, The Future of State and Federal Civil Rights Prosecutions: The Lessons of the Rodney King Trial, 41 UCLA L. REV. 509, 539-42 (1994). 2. U.S. CONST. amend. V. 3. See infra notes 10-27 and accompanying text. 4. United States v. Koon, No. CR-92-686-JGD (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 1992) (order denying defendant Koon's motion requesting an evidentiary hearing on double jeopardy).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most