Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
69. Should the court grant the motion to dismiss?
The man's lawyer has filed a motion in State B to dismiss the charge based on the double jeopardy protection against a second prosecution for the man's single act of kidnapping.
A man kidnapped a victim in State A and transported the victim across the state border into State B. These actions violated the kidnapping laws of both states, which are identical. A jury convicted the man in a State A court, but the trial judge gave what prosecutors in State B deemed an unduly lenient sentence. The state prosecutor in State B then commenced a kidnapping case against the man for violating State B's kidnapping statute.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is correct. The issue here is whether each state may separately prosecute the man for violating each state's laws without violating double jeopardy. The rule clearly states that double jeopardy does not apply to trials by separate sovereigns, including separate states. Therefore, because the man violated both states' laws, each may prosecute him separately without violating his right to be free from double jeopardy.
A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Once jeopardy attaches, following the empaneling and swearing-in of a jury, the defendant may not be retried for the same offense, regardless of whether he is acquitted. Here, the two states are permitted to prosecute the defendant separately as two different sovereigns.
C is incorrect. Although the double jeopardy protection prohibits a second prosecution following a conviction for the same offense, this is inapplicable to separate sovereign states. In this case, the man would not have a double jeopardy defense available to him and can be properly tried in both State A and State B.
D is incorrect. Collateral estoppel ensures that a defendant not be tried or convicted of a crime if a prior prosecution by that sovereignty resulted in a factual determination inconsistent with one required for conviction. However, this doctrine only applies when being retried in the same sovereignty. Because the man is being prosecuted in two different sovereignties, collateral estoppel does not apply.