Yes, both states can put him on trial. The Court explained that each state is like its own separate country with its own set of laws. Breaking Alabama's law is one crime, and breaking Georgia's law is a different crime, even if it was all part of the same terrible plan. So being tried by Georgia doesn't give you a free pass from being tried by Alabama. Each state gets its power from being its own boss, not from any other state or the federal government.

No, this isn't fair. Both states shouldn't be able to try him. I agree with Justice Marshall that when two states try someone for the same thing, it's different from when the federal government and a state both try someone. Two states are basically trying to do the same thing - keep their people safe - while the federal government and states have different jobs. This should count as being tried twice for the same thing, which isn't allowed.

No, this is wrong. The rule that sometimes allows two trials was made for when the federal government and a state government both want to try someone, because they have very different jobs to do. But two states have the same job - keeping people safe and punishing crimes. It looks like Alabama was just unhappy that Georgia only gave Heath a life sentence, so they tried him again to get the death penalty. That's not fair and feels like two states ganging up on someone.

Yes, Alabama can try Larry. Each State is like its own separate country when it comes to making and enforcing laws. Being found guilty in Georgia doesn't protect Larry from being tried in Alabama for the same crime. What matters is that Georgia and Alabama are separate bosses, and their power to punish comes from different places. So, even if Georgia already punished Larry, Alabama can also punish him if he broke their laws too.

Just because two States have different reasons for their laws, it shouldn't create an exception to the rule against trying someone twice for the same crime. However, Justice Marshall makes a good point that there's a big difference between the interests of a State and the Federal Government, but the interests of two States are pretty similar. This supports the idea that a person shouldn't be tried twice.

The rule allowing separate Federal and State prosecutions exists because the Federal and State governments have different jobs in our country's system. But this rule doesn't make sense when it's two States prosecuting someone for the same crime. The States are in charge of the same basic things, so stopping a second State prosecution would still let one State handle the crime. Also, it was unfair how Georgia and Alabama worked together to make sure Larry would be executed, even though he pleaded guilty in Georgia.

"The dual sovereignty doctrine is founded on the common-law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government. When a defendant in a single act violates the `peace and dignity'of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct `offences.'"

Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, "successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause."

The double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment, however, bars successive prosecutions "only if the two offenses for which the defendant is prosecuted are the `same.'"

"In its double jeopardy jurisprudence, the [Supreme] Court has held that a defendant's conduct in violation of two separate sovereigns (`the dual sovereignty doctrine') constitutes two distinct offenses. Thus, under the dual sovereignty doctrine,[the defendant's] federal offense would be considered separate from his state offense for double jeopardy purposes. "

The Supreme Court has explained that separate federal and state prosecutions for the same unlawful act do not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause because "[f] oremost among the prerogatives of sovereignty is the power to create and enforce a criminal code" and "[a] State's interest in vindicating its sovereign authority through enforcement of its laws by definition can …

The Court has uniformly held that the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal Government because each State's power to prosecute is derived from its own `inherent sovereignty,'not from the Federal Government.

Notably, the United States Supreme Court has determined that the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutions for the same crime by separate sovereignties.

"In applying the dual sovereignty doctrine, then, the crucial determination is whether the two entities that seek successively to prosecute a defendant for the same course of conduct can be termed separate sovereigns. This determination turns on whether the two entities draw their authority to punish the offender from distinct sources of power."

Subject to NJSA 2C: 1-11, conviction of a federal offense does not bar State prosecution even if the proscribed conduct arises out of the same episode.

That is, "when the same act transgresses the laws of two sovereigns, `it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable. "

No. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions by two different states for the same conduct because states are separate sovereigns. The dual sovereignty doctrine holds that an act that violates the laws of two distinct sovereigns constitutes two separate offenses. The crucial determination is whether the two prosecuting entities derive their authority to punish from distinct sources of power. The States derive their power from their own inherent sovereignty, preserved by the Tenth Amendment, not from the Federal Government. Therefore, states are as sovereign with respect to each other as they are with respect to the Federal Government, and each has the independent authority to prosecute offenses against its own laws without regard to a prosecution by the other.

Yes, the Double Jeopardy Clause should bar successive state prosecutions. While adhering to the view that different statutory purposes cannot justify an exception to double jeopardy, this dissent joins Justice Marshall's opinion. Justice Marshall's analysis correctly uses the concept of sovereign 'interest' to demonstrate the qualitative similarity between the interests of two states, as opposed to the different nature of federal and state interests. This application of interest analysis reinforces, rather than undermines, the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Yes, the Double Jeopardy Clause should bar successive state prosecutions. The dual sovereignty doctrine is a fiction created to accommodate the unique relationship between the federal government and the states, which have complementary but different sovereign interests. This justification does not apply to successive prosecutions by two states, whose sovereign concerns are identical. Furthermore, the cooperation between Georgia and Alabama in this case was a collusive effort to secure a death sentence after Heath had already pleaded guilty to a life sentence, constituting a 'relentless prosecution' that violates fundamental fairness and due process.

Yes. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The crucial determination is whether the two entities that seek successively to prosecute a defendant for the same course of conduct can be termed separate sovereigns. This determination turns on whether the two entities draw their authority to punish the offender from distinct sources of power. The States are separate sovereigns with respect to each other because each State's power to prosecute derives from its own inherent sovereignty, not from the Federal Government. The States are no less sovereign with respect to each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government. Therefore, a single act constitutes an offense against each sovereign whose laws are violated by that act. The Court has consistently endorsed the principle that a single act constitutes an offense against each sovereign whose laws are violated by that act.

The different purposes or interests served by state statutes cannot justify an exception to the established double jeopardy law. However, Justice Marshall's dissent uses interest analysis to demonstrate the qualitative difference in the general nature of federal and state interests and the qualitative similarity in the nature of States' interests. This use of interest analysis furthers, rather than undermines, the purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The dual sovereignty doctrine was born of the need to accommodate complementary state and federal concerns within our system of concurrent territorial jurisdictions. It cannot justify successive prosecutions by different States. Where two States seek to prosecute the same defendant for the same crime in two separate proceedings, the justifications found in the federal-state context for an exemption from double jeopardy constraints do not hold. The sovereign concerns with whose vindication each State has been charged are identical. Barring the second prosecution would still permit one State to act upon the broad range of sovereign concerns reserved to the States by the Constitution. Moreover, the cooperation between Georgia and Alabama authorities to ensure Heath's execution, despite his guilty plea in Georgia, violated fundamental fairness and due process.

Heath v. Alabama

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot