I am reading The Prosecution of Geroge W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi. I have only just started and this question may be addressed somewhere in the book but I am curious now.
The premise of the book is that there is a legitimate case to be made for prosecuting President Bush for the murder of US troops by presenting a false case for going to war to the American public. The author also insists this case could be brought in any of the fifty states since each state has lost at least one of its citizens to this.
Assume the premise is true (this is not the forum for arguing whether the author is right or wrong…there is a GD thread on the book) and prosecutors in all 50 states (and Washington D.C.) decided they wanted to have a go at prosecuting President Bush for this.
My question is, in theory, could President Bush face 51 separate prosecutions or would one state, if it found him innocent, absolve him in all states?
I suspect that since each state has varying laws that a ruling in one state would not attach double jeopardy in another state.
On the other hand we are talking about a singular action on Bush’s part they would be after him for. Dragging someone through 51 separate trials for the same crime hoping one would stick would seem excessive (he’d be in court for murder for the rest of his life probably).
Anyone know how that would play out? Again assume the premise from the book is correct and each state could bring a case against him for the purposes of this question.
Putting aside questions of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken as Commander in Chief (and they are big, big questions), double jeopardy generally only applies to prosecutions of the same individual by the same sovereign for the same or a lesser included crime. As GFactor said, that wouldn’t apply here because there are different prosecutions for the murder of different individuals, and because each state is a separate sovereign which can each prosecute even for the murder of a single individual. Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985). Other states might be barred from multiple prosecutions after the Department of Justice appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus asking that the first state to prosecute cease doing so on grounds of immunity, but double jeopardy itself wouldn’t be a bar to multiple prosecutions.
**Gfactor’s ** cite notes that double jeopardy doesn’t come into play when a single crime breaks two separate sets of laws.
This particular hypothetical probably wouldn’t even need that clause. This would be a crime with a large number of identifiable victims. Presumably each attorney general would prosecute for offenses against the residents of their own states and no others. Each prosecution would be completely separate and no double jeopardy would attach. A finding of not guilty in one state wouldn’t affect any of the other judgments.
As has been demonstrated in the GD thread, there’s simply no realistic legal way to try Bush for murder of soldiers killed in the line of duty.
But if you wish to recast your question as, “John Evil commits a single act that causes the deaths of multiple people in multiple states; is double jeopardy a bar to multiple convictions for him?” then the answer us no, as GFactor and pravnik have said. Each death is a separate crime, and the death of Andrew Adams in Virginia is a separate case than the death of Zachary Zelinski in California.
A nitpick: the state attorney general will not necessarily be the charging authority. In Ohio, for instance, felony cases are presented to grand juries for indictment and are handled by county prosecuting attorneys. The attorney general handles very few felony cases, and only in a narrow category of cases (not including murder).
I agree with the consensus as to double jeopardy. But as awful as Bush is, as stoopid as the decision to invade Iraq was, as misleading as the spin for that decision may have been, there’s just no way in hell he will ever be prosecuted for it by a Federal or state court. Not gonna happen. The legal and political reasons it won’t are insurmountable.
So suppose I’m accused of setting off a bomb that killed 20 people in WA and 5 people in OR. I get tried for murder in WA and acquitted. But that wouldn’t stop Oregon from prosecuting me for the 5 deaths that occured on the Oregon side of the border.
But suppose Washington prosecutes me for, say, 5 counts of murder and I’m accquitted. But there are still 15 other murders. Could I be prosecuted for the other 15 Washington murders?
I have only just begun reading the book so I have no clue yet of Bugliosi’s arguments as to why he thinks the president could be tried (but reading the overview of the book certainly he thinks he has made the case for it).
I noted in the link Gfactor provided that Bush could be prosecuted in other countries for violating international law.
“Even in another country, the president could be prosecuted for acts that weren’t part of his job or violated international criminal law.”
Does that mean that the president cannot be prosecuted in the United States for violating international law? Seems odd that only other countries could do such a thing. Then, would a state have standing to claim the violation of international law harmed their own citizens and use that as a justification for prosecution?
Usually a crime can only be prosecuted if the authorities have jurisdiction. If I murder a guy in Mexico, I’m not going to be prosecuted in Guatemala. If I rob a house in Seattle, I can’t be prosecuted in Portland.
But there are some crimes that CAN be prosecuted outside of the jursidiction they happened in. Like piracy, genocide, and so forth. So if George Bush commits piracy inside US territory, he could be hanged as a pirate by the British even if the US government declines to prosecute him.
Yes, each victim gives rise to a different case, but for the sake of judicial economy these kinds of multiple-victim cases are often consolidated for trial even if charged separately. In any event, after 5 acquittals, the Washington AG or local DA will probably reevaluate the situation before charging you for the other 15. If she couldn’t nail you for the 5, she might very well not be able to make her case stick for the 15, unless new evidence or better witnesses come to light.
That’s part of the strategy of the Attorney General isn’t it? To decide HOW to try each case, taking cost into consideration. Whether to try each crime seperately or together. (Can you imagine if they had to retry OJ? The cost would’ve been outrageous)
I have seen some cases tried together but others tried seperately. I recall Leopold and Leob were to be tried seperately for Kidnapping (then a capital crime) and murder, in case they got off for murder. (Of course Darrow used a different strategy all together)
You committed one act that caused 20 deaths in Washington. Washington only tried you for five murders. Are the other fifteen still up for grabs by Washington? It depends on Washington law and what happened at your first trial. If Washington tried to try you for all 20 deaths and you objected, and the trial-for-five was the result of your successful motion to sever, then you can be tried for the fifteen without a jeopardy bar. But you may have some defense in the notion of “collateral estoppel.” This is a doctrine that says that the state cannot re-try a fact against you if it lost on that fact at a previous trial. So the question to be resolved would be, “What facts did the jury find in the first trial?” If the acquittal could have reasonably been for facts which don’t come into play on the second trial, then collateral estoppel isn’t a help for you.
The state may have some kind of a joinder law, which requires them to try the 20 deaths together. If so, and they only chose to charge five deaths and use the other fifteen as aggravators or for some other purpose, then they might be procedurally barred from trying you on those deaths.
So, short answer: it depends, but the problems aren’t double jeopardy-related.
I may be drifting away from GQ territory here not to mention hijacking my own thread but that seems a dodgy way around double jeopardy for prosecutors. Or at the least an evasion of the spirit of the law.
If the crime was a single act (you set off a bomb) and 15 people die from it then prosecuting you 15 separate times hoping one will stick, while legal, sure seems a little unfair to the accused.
Well, clearly Bush could be charged with murder if he walked into an army base, pulled out a pistol and shot an active duty soldier in the head. So his immunity as Commander in Chief isn’t absolute.