Denezpi v. United States
596 U. S. ____ (2022) (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions for offenses arising from a single act if the offenses are defined by separate sovereigns. An 'offence' is determined by the sovereign that enacted the law, not the sovereign that enforces it, meaning a single sovereign can prosecute violations of its own law and another sovereign's law without violating the Clause.
Facts:
- Merle Denezpi and V.Y., both members of the Navajo Nation, were at a house in Towaoc, Colorado, located within the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation.
- While there, Denezpi barricaded the door, threatened V.Y., and forced her to have sex with him.
- After Denezpi fell asleep, V.Y. managed to escape from the house.
- V.Y. reported the assault to tribal authorities.
Procedural Posture:
- An officer with the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs filed a criminal complaint against Merle Denezpi in the Southwest Region Court of Indian Offenses (a CFR court).
- Denezpi was charged with violating a Ute Mountain Ute tribal ordinance for assault and battery, as well as two federal regulatory offenses.
- In the CFR court, Denezpi pleaded guilty to the tribal assault and battery charge and was sentenced to 140 days' imprisonment.
- Six months later, a federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado indicted Denezpi for aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country under the federal Major Crimes Act based on the same incident.
- Denezpi filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing it was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, which the District Court denied.
- Following a jury trial, Denezpi was convicted in federal district court and sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment.
- Denezpi (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction, holding the two prosecutions were by separate sovereigns.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Denezpi's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar the federal government from prosecuting a defendant under a federal criminal statute after the same defendant was prosecuted in a Court of Indian Offenses for a violation of a tribal ordinance arising from the same underlying conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barrett
No, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the subsequent federal prosecution. The Clause prohibits being twice put in jeopardy for the 'same offence,' not the same conduct. An 'offence' is defined by the law it violates, and a law is defined by the sovereign that enacts it. Because the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the United States are separate sovereigns, the tribal assault ordinance and the federal Major Crimes Act proscribe separate offenses. The dual-sovereignty doctrine follows from the text of the Clause and is not an exception to it. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the same sovereign (the federal government) conducted both prosecutions; what matters is that the prosecutions were for violations of laws enacted by two different sovereigns.
Dissenting - Justice Gorsuch
Yes, the second prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. Both prosecutions were conducted by the same sovereign—the federal government—for what was effectively the same offense. The Court of Indian Offenses is a federal entity, created and controlled by the Department of the Interior. Denezpi's first conviction was for violating a federal regulation that assimilates tribal law, making it a federal offense. Consequently, the federal government prosecuted Denezpi for a federal regulatory crime and then, dissatisfied with the sentence, prosecuted him again for a federal statutory crime based on the same conduct. This is a clear violation of the substance and purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prevents a single sovereign from having a second 'bite at the apple.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the dual-sovereignty doctrine by holding that the identity of the enacting sovereign, not the prosecuting sovereign, is the dispositive factor. It reinforces that an 'offence' under the Double Jeopardy Clause is defined by the law itself, creating a bright-line rule. This ruling has major implications for jurisdictional complexities in Indian country and beyond, potentially allowing a single governmental entity (federal or state) to conduct successive prosecutions for the same conduct as long as it enforces laws from two different sovereigns. It narrows the potential for defendants to use the Double Jeopardy Clause as a shield in cases involving overlapping jurisdictions and inter-governmental law enforcement.
