Americans have a constitutional right to not be prosecuted twice for the same crime.

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: July 7, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------


** SCOTUS Paves the Way for Government to Circumvent Double Jeopardy, Prosecute Individuals Twice for the Same Crime
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A unanimous Supreme Court has refused to rein in the government’s power to indiscriminately pick and choose the laws by which it will abide ([link removed]) , especially as it relates to the rights of the accused in criminal cases.

In a ruling ([link removed]) that defies the very safeguards put in place by America’s founders to guard against prosecutorial misconduct, the Court held in Smith v. United States that a defendant who faced trial in the wrong location can simply be prosecuted again in another location without triggering the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the government from prosecuting someone twice for the same crime. In weighing in before the Supreme Court, a legal coalition made up of The Rutherford Institute, Cato Institute, and the National Association for Public Defense had warned ([link removed]) that failing to hold the government accountable for filing criminal charges in improper locations could give rise to a situation in which the government is effectively allowed to circumvent Double Jeopardy protections by perpetually retrying an accused in one unfair district after
another.

“The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are supposed to serve as an antidote to the abuses of the American police state,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “People have a constitutional right to not be prosecuted twice for the same crime, and when and if they are accused of a crime, they have a right to know what they’re being charged with and are given the opportunity to have a fair, speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, the right to a lawyer, and the chance to confront and question their accusers.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

Although Timothy Smith was convicted for theft of trade secrets due to acts he committed while in Alabama involving computer servers located in the Middle District of Florida, he was charged and tried in the Northern District of Florida. Prior to trial, Smith moved to dismiss the charge for being brought in the wrong district in violation of the Constitution’s Venue Clause in Section 2 of Article III and the Sixth Amendment. Smith’s motion was denied and he was tried by a jury in the Northern District of Florida. After being found guilty, Smith appealed and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Smith’s conviction because he had been tried in the wrong district, but held that Smith could be subjected to trial again for the same offense in the proper district without implicating the Double Jeopardy Clause.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, Cato Institute, and the National Association for Public Defense argued ([link removed]) that the Constitution requires a sufficient consequence to deter the government from selecting an unfair location and jury as the British Crown did by removing colonial defendants overseas to England for trial of charges like treason. While the Supreme Court acknowledged “there is no question that the founding generation enthusiastically embraced the vicinage right [to a jury from the district wherein the crime was committed] and wielded it as a political argument of the Revolution” by denouncing such violations in the Declaration of Independence, the Court nonetheless held ([link removed]) that a defendant tried before a jury from the wrong geographic area can be prosecuted again for the same crime.

Michael Li-Ming Wong, Vladimir J. Semendyai, and Philip Hammersley of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP helped to advance the arguments in the Smith v. United States amicus briefs ([link removed]) .

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org ([link removed]) .

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fscotus-paves-the-way-for-the-government-to-circumvent-double-jeopardy-clause Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fscotus-paves-the-way-for-the-government-to-circumvent-double-jeopardy-clause)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2023 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])