{"id":86877,"date":"2018-12-12T10:45:32","date_gmt":"2018-12-12T15:45:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?p=86877"},"modified":"2019-11-05T16:02:36","modified_gmt":"2019-11-05T21:02:36","slug":"gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy","title":{"rendered":"Gamble v. United States on Double Jeopardy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t

On December 6, 2018, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gamble v. United States<\/em><\/a>, No. 17-646. Because we covered the Gamble case in some detail last week<\/a>, we thought it only fitting that we give you the blow-by-blow on how the oral argument went before the Court.<\/p>\n

A Little Background on Gamble v. United States<\/h2>\n

Just to recap the background of this case, U.S. v.\u00a0<\/em>Gamble<\/em>\u00a0began in 2015 when Terance Gamble was stopped by police in Alabama for driving with a broken headlight. Upon searching Gamble\u2019s car, the police found marijuana, a digital scale, and a handgun.<\/p>\n

\"Gamble

Gamble v. United States – Double Jeopardy<\/p><\/div>\n

Gamble was subsequently charged with crimes including being a felon in possession of a handgun (Gamble had prior convictions). The key to the case was that he was charged as being a felon in possession of a handgun by both the State of Alabama and the federal government.<\/p>\n

After serving a year-long sentence for his state conviction, Gamble argued in federal court that it would be a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to prosecute him federally for the same handgun possession offense. The lower courts dismissed the argument, noting the Supreme Court\u2019s prior decisions allowing an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.<\/p>\n

That exception \u2013 the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d doctrine \u2013 provides that a person can be prosecuted for the same conduct, provided that the cases are brought by separate sovereigns, such as a state and the federal government. Accordingly, the question before the Court was whether it should overrule the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d doctrine as being unfair in Gamble\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

U.S. v. Gamble<\/em> at Oral Argument before the Court<\/h2>\n

\u2022 Gamble\u2019s Argument \u2013 Plain Meaning and Original Understanding<\/strong><\/p>\n

The attorney for Mr. Gamble was the first to argue before the Court. Overall, Gamble\u2019s attorney emphasized the plain language and the original understanding of the Double Jeopardy Clause at the time the Constitution was drafted to support the notion that the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d doctrine should be overturned. It appeared that Gamble\u2019s attorney wanted to appeal to the \u201coriginalists\u201d on the Court.<\/p>\n

Gamble\u2019s attorney noted that the idea of separate sovereigns is not in the plain language of the Clause, and that several English cases decided in the 1700s seemed to steer away from a type of separate sovereigns doctrine, as English law also employed a double jeopardy clause.<\/p>\n

The justices on the Court, however, seemed unimpressed with the sparse historical court decisions to support his argument. Notably, the scrutiny on Gamble\u2019s argument was not only from those justices who are not \u201coriginalists.\u201d Indeed, Justice Roberts seemed to be skeptical that the new American republic, at the time the Constitution was drafted, would want to adopt the English approach such that it would encroach on the new country\u2019s sovereignty.<\/p>\n

Justice Alito, similarly, took issue with Gamble\u2019s argument. Justice Alito expressed concern that the United States would be unable to prosecute a terrorist if the terrorist was first prosecuted for his acts of terrorism in a country that may or may not have the sophistication and procedures for fairness that American courts have.<\/p>\n

Justice Kagan \u2013 a Justice who is not persuaded by the current trend of \u201coriginalism\u201d \u2013 directed Gamble\u2019s attorney to the fact that the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d doctrine has been the law for 170 years, with 30 Supreme Court justices passing on its validity. She then pressed Gamble\u2019s attorney on the role of stare decisis \u2013 respect for past Court precedent \u2013 in this equation. She also had what was probably the best takeaway quote from this part of the argument:<\/p>\n

I\u2019m a little bit . . . confused as to why your argument seems, frankly, a little bit one note. You know, your brief and now your argument is just all about the original jurisdiction. And there are some people on this bench that think that that is the alpha and omega of every constitutional question.<\/p>\n

But there are other people on this bench who do not, who think that 170 years of significant practice where 30 justices have signed on to a rule, that you\u2019re going to have to give me more than the fact that . . . pretty early on in the republic they decided that that was not what the original understanding was, even if they\u2019re wrong. . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And so this is your opportunity to give me more.<\/p>\n

Gamble\u2019s attorney did his level best to \u201cgive [Justice Kagan] more,\u201d but he only relied on an argument involving incorporation of constitutional rules over states. Unfortunately for Gamble\u2019s attorney, however, Justice Kagan had already rejected that incorporation rationale earlier in the oral argument.<\/p>\n

Even the new Justice Kavanaugh \u2013 another \u201coriginalist\u201d \u2013 seemed concerned with stare decisis whereby the Court must show stability and humility in respecting precedent.<\/p>\n

\u2022 The U.S. Government\u2019s Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n

Questioning of the Assistant Solicitor General, arguing for the government, began with Justice Ginsburg noting that the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d doctrine has been widely criticized by academics and federal courts alike. The government responded that while the doctrine has been criticized there are no real practical problems that have arisen from its existence.<\/p>\n

The government\u2019s attorney explained that the federal government has a policy in place, the Petite policy, in which the federal government is careful not to bring successive prosecutions for the same conduct. It only does so in limited cases, in conjunction with the states, when the Department of Justice believes that federal interests have not been vindicated by the relevant state prosecution.<\/p>\n

The attorney added that the federal government only advances a federal prosecution after there has been a state prosecution in about 100 cases per year. Plus, the government attorney noted that overturning the doctrine would eliminate the possibility of domestic prosecutions if a crime was already prosecuted by a foreign country, which is huge cost to the United States.<\/p>\n

Justice Ginsburg and Justice Gorsuch pressed the government\u2019s attorney further on the federalism problem that arises with the doctrine. The government\u2019s attorney, however, was rather adept at fielding the Justices\u2019 questions with case examples, and with noting that people in the country are already well aware that they are subjected to taxes, and their businesses are regulated, by both the federal and state governments. Thus, being subject to both state and federal criminal jurisdiction is not a surprise to anyone.<\/p>\n

In sum, the government\u2019s attorney provided a strong argument that Gamble would have to show a lot more than he has to overcome the Court\u2019s 170-year-old precedent on the doctrine.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On December 6, 2018, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Because we covered the Gamble case in some detail last week, we thought it only fitting that we give you the blow-by-blow on how the oral argument went before the Court. A Little Background…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":86878,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[328],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nGamble v. United States | Double Jeopardy | 802-444-4357<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"On December 6, 2018, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Because we covered the Gamble case\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gamble v. United States on Double Jeopardy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On December 6, 2018, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Because we covered the Gamble case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Sentencing.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/facebook.com\/attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"www.facebook.com\/attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-12-12T15:45:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-11-05T21:02:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/supreme_court_1545114731.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"853\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Brandon Sample\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Gamble v. United States on Double Jeopardy\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"On December 6, 2018, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Because we covered the Gamble case\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Brandon Sample\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy\",\"name\":\"Gamble v. United States | Double Jeopardy | 802-444-4357\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/supreme_court_1545114731.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-12-12T15:45:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-11-05T21:02:36+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c\"},\"description\":\"On December 6, 2018, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Because we covered the Gamble case\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/supreme_court_1545114731.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/supreme_court_1545114731.jpg\",\"width\":1280,\"height\":853,\"caption\":\"Gamble v. United States, Double Jeopardy\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gamble v. United States on Double Jeopardy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/\",\"name\":\"Sentencing.net\",\"description\":\"News & Legal Updates By Attorney Brandon Sample\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c\",\"name\":\"Brandon Sample\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Brandon Sample\"},\"description\":\"Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon\u2019s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/brandonsample.com\",\"www.facebook.com\/attorneysample\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/attorneysample\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gamble v. United States | Double Jeopardy | 802-444-4357","description":"On December 6, 2018, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Because we covered the Gamble case","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gamble v. United States on Double Jeopardy","og_description":"On December 6, 2018, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Because we covered the Gamble case","og_url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy","og_site_name":"Sentencing.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/facebook.com\/attorneysample","article_author":"www.facebook.com\/attorneysample","article_published_time":"2018-12-12T15:45:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-11-05T21:02:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1280,"height":853,"url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/supreme_court_1545114731.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Brandon Sample","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Gamble v. United States on Double Jeopardy","twitter_description":"On December 6, 2018, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Because we covered the Gamble case","twitter_creator":"@attorneysample","twitter_site":"@attorneysample","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Brandon Sample","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy","url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy","name":"Gamble v. United States | Double Jeopardy | 802-444-4357","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/supreme_court_1545114731.jpg","datePublished":"2018-12-12T15:45:32+00:00","dateModified":"2019-11-05T21:02:36+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c"},"description":"On December 6, 2018, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Because we covered the Gamble case","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/supreme_court_1545114731.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/supreme_court_1545114731.jpg","width":1280,"height":853,"caption":"Gamble v. United States, Double Jeopardy"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/gamble-v-united-states-double-jeopardy#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gamble v. United States on Double Jeopardy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/","name":"Sentencing.net","description":"News & Legal Updates By Attorney Brandon Sample","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c","name":"Brandon Sample","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Brandon Sample"},"description":"Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon\u2019s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).","sameAs":["https:\/\/brandonsample.com","www.facebook.com\/attorneysample","https:\/\/twitter.com\/attorneysample"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86877"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86877\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/86878"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}