Arpaio’s conviction was for criminal contempt of court. Some law-talking Doper May come along and break down why the kind of contempt charge that comes from not cooperating is different.
It has been determined that 5A applies to a verdict of innocence (or, I think, cases of prosecutorial misconduct, like in the Cliven Bundy cases). A ruling from the 1970s holds that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt: a convicted criminal is therewith no longer in jeopardy (guilt is a binary thing) and can be compelled to testify against himself. This was the crux of the early 20th century ruling that gave a person the right to refuse pardon.
IANAL either, but I believe NY is somewhat unique in that their double-jeopardy statute includes similar Federal trials. There is apparently a movement underway to change that, which would need to be done before Mueller indicts to avoid ex post facto problems.
Shoot, there’s gotta be enough stuff in Jersey to hang him twice.
Again, double jeopardy only applies if you have been exonerated. A pardon would be the opposite of that.
That is the subject of the Schneiderman memo briefly discussed in this gigantic morass of a thread back in post #4091.
Schneiderman is no longer the Attorney General of NY, having resigned amidst scandal. But his successors are reputed to be pursuing the same agenda with the Legislature. The original memo is a brief and interesting read.
That is potentially - in certain circumstances - not actually true in New York. See above.
IANALTG (law-talking guy), but how’s that different from what Arpaio did? The court ordered him to do something, and he didn’t, so he was found in contempt.
IANAL, but I worked with a few hundred of them and spent my career in a courtroom.
Double jeopardy does not attach until:
-
A jury is sworn in a jury trial; or
-
The first witness is sworn in a court trial (trial by judge); or
-
The judge accepts a plea agreement.
In federal v. state proceedings, I think it’s unlikely that Mueller’s team would charge any of the defendants with the same crime in both jurisdictions. My guess is they have such an array of criminal charges from which to choose, they can apportion some of them to federal jurisdiction and some to state jurisdictions, giving them a fall-back position no matter what Trump attempts to do with pardons.
Bear in mind that there will be a public/political/legal backlash to unfettered pardoning of criminal defendants for the corrupt intent of sabotaging any criminal proceedings being brought by Mueller. Why do you think Trump hasn’t done any of this stuff already?
While it may be true that Trump is within his constitutional authority to exercise his power to pardon, it’s unlikely that even this Supreme Court would support the legal contention that a president may pardon individuals in an effort to obstruct his own legal peril.
Mueller and his team are federal prosecutors. They don’t file criminal charges in state courts. That’s up to the Attorneys General (and their subordinates) in the state(s) concerned. They can choose to act, or not, on a referral from Mueller, or from their own investigations. But they are separate worlds.
Of course what you say is true.
Obviously my meaning is that Mueller would refer/coordinate his efforts with the appropriate state officials to ensure that some charges would be filed in the federal jurisdiction, and some would be filed in state jurisdictions. There’s a reason I used the word, “apportion.”
But thanks for the mansplain.
No prob. May your menstruations be free of bears.
All this dickishness because you didn’t understand the plain meaning of the word, ‘apportion’?
My goodness.
“Free of - -” did he say “bears?”
Reference to this Straight Dope column: Are bears more likely to attack menstruating women?
I consider it almost a certainty that Mueller will cooperate with state AGs to file charges against Trump and his people if at all possible. Those could not be pardoned by Pence or whoever gets the Gerald Ford role of being the unelected President who takes over for Pence.
Take over for Pence?? Cooool. I like your forward thinking! 
Yeah, I got his reference. I just didn’t understand what was supposed to make it wittehhh.
Me, too. 
It was at least as witty as your use of “mansplain”.
Not intended to be witty. I called him out on what he did. There is no better term for it.