—————————————————–I am working on a blog post about this case. Gamble argued double jeopardy because he was convicted on the State and the Federal levels for “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” both based on the same incident. It is not double jeopardy. It is dual-sovereignty. It does not always happen, but when it does it is valid. A crime is any act coupled with intent against which there is a valid statute defined by a “Sovereign”. Both the State and the Federal Governments are “Sovereigns” and therefore both convictions are valid. There is about 170 years of case opinions to support the legal doctrine of dual-sovereignty. The Supreme Court basically stands by the decision. full blog to follow………— Chronology, IRAC & Other Points. —

– 2008: Terance Gamble – convicted of robbery in Alabama.   He served his time. – 2015: Terance Gamble – pulled over for a broken tail light.

• Police then smelled marijuana.
• Police searched his car.
• Police found several firearms.

– He was charged and convicted under the Alabama “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” Statute and was then charged and convicted under a similar Federal Statute. – He appealed the ruling based on a “Double Jeopardy” argument. – He lost his appeal based on the doctrine of “Dual-Sovereignty”. ** The ISSUE: Should the “Dual-Sovereignty” exception to the Double Jeopardy Rule (Clause in the 5th Amendment) be overruled? ** ** The Rules: Double Jeopardy is the Main Rule, but the Petit Policy is a sub-rule dealt with. ** ** Analysis: Offenses are creations of law.  Law is a creation of a Sovereign.  There are 2 Sovereigns in a State and Federal Law situation.  Therefore there are 2 crimes chargeable. ** Conclusion:  The Dual-Sovereignty Rule stands.   oral argument points included:

• English Common Law, Courts would not prosecute if a Foreign Sovereign had.  This goes against the Sovereignty Principle of United States Law.
• Blockburger Rule
• Interest of Federal Law has to have not been served for an exception to the Petit Policy, but this is not anything to do with the Double Jeopardy Rule.
• Incorporation Doctrine that the States had to abide by the Federal Bill of Rights.

Cases Cited:

• Bartkus v. Illinois (1959) – cites other cases.
  • (text of footnote 9: It has not been deemed relevant to discussion of our problem to consider dubious English precedents concerning the effect of foreign criminal judgments on the ability of English courts to try charges arising out of the same conduct — dubious in part because of the confused and inadequate reporting of the case on which much is based, see the varying versions of Rex v. Hutchinson found in Beak v. Thyrwhit, 3 Mod.194, 87 Eng.Rep. 124 (reported as Beake v. Tyrrell in 1 Show. 6, 89 Eng.Rep. 411, and as Beake v. Tirrell in Comberbach 120, 90 Eng.Rep. 379), Burrows v. Jemino, 2 Strange 733, 93 Eng.Rep. 815 (reported as Burrouqhs v. Jamineau in Mos. 1, 25 Eng.Rep. 235, as Burrows v. Jemineau in Sel.Cas. 70, 25 Eng.Rep. 228, as Burrows v. Jemineau in 2 Eq.Ca.Abr. 476, and as Burrows v . Jemino in 22 Eng.Rep. 443), and explained in Gage v. Bulkeley, Ridg.Cas. 263, 27 Eng.Rep. 824. Such precedents are dubious also because they reflect a power of discretion vested in English judges not relevant to the constitutional law of our federalism)