I read a comment elsewhere that this case could have a significant effect on the power of the Presidency, which kind of makes sense. But the idea behind it kind of baffles me.
[li]Martez Gamble was arrested and found to be in possession of a firearm[/li][li]in a state court,he was convicted of illegal possession (due to priors) and locked up[/li][li]meanwhile, federal prosecutor brought the same charge on him[/li][li]Gamble is suing for relief on the basis of double-jeopardy[/li][/ul]
I was always under the impression that double-jeopardy applied to a finding of innocence: if your name is cleared, you will not have to clear it again on the same count. If you are found guilty, harm has been proven: it does not make sense that you should be protected from fully answering the consequences of your transgression.
Is it reasonable to treat a case as closed upon conviction?