4

Say I'm accused of murder (to pick the big, obvious, unambiguous crime), and I am charged by the state. Due to the dual sovereignty doctrine, theoretically the federal government could charge me too (assuming this was also a federal murder). I understand it's customary for the federal government not to charge me, as long as the state is charging me. So, under what circumstances would the feds break that custom and charge me as well?

The dual sovereignty doctrine is pretty irrelevant as long as that custom is observed, but it is only a custom.

I imagine they'd have an interest if the crime had interstate elements; i.e., if I crossed state lines to do it. But if all the interested states charged me, would that change the federal government's position?

I understand Luigi Mangioni is being charged by both the state of New York and the Federal govt, and this is unusual, but is it unprecedented? Does this reflect the unusual nature of the crime?

1
  • 1
    One possible scenario in which the feds might charge you is if the state fails to convict. See, for example, the federal charges against the four LAPD officers for violating the civil rights of Rodney King, after their California state trial ended in acquittal. Commented Oct 6, 2025 at 0:23

1 Answer 1

8

There are numerous other examples just among cases that have reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

E.g. Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678 (2019) was about separate prosecutions by Alabama and the United States for Terrance Gamble's possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court declined to overturn the dual-sovereignty doctrine you describe.

And in Denezpi v. United States, 596 U.S. 591 (2022), the Supreme Court confirmed that separate prosecutions under the Mountain Ute Tribe's tribal ordinance and under a federal criminal statute were allowed by the dual-sovereignty doctrine. Justice Barrett described:

United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978), is the seminal case. There, a member of the Navajo Tribe was convicted in tribal court of violating a provision of the Navajo Tribal Code; he was later charged in federal court with violating a federal statute based on the same underlying conduct. Id., at 314–316. Citing the dual-sovereignty doctrine, the Court rejected Wheeler’s double jeopardy argument. We explained that before Europeans arrived on this continent, tribes “were self-governing sovereign political communities” with “the inherent power to prescribe laws for their members and to punish infractions of those laws.”

The "petite policy" guides prosecutorial discretion

For some offences Congress has barred a federal prosecution where a state prosecution has completed first. E.g. 18 USC §659 says:

A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of any State shall be a bar to any prosecution under this section for the same act or acts.

Otherwise, the Federal Department of Justice is guided by a policy called the petite policy in exercising its discretion whether to prosecute for substantially the same acts involved in a prior state proceeding.

The three prerequisites under the guideline are that:

  • there must be a substantial federal interest;
  • that federal interest must be left unvindicated by the state conviction (e.g. a low sentence); and
  • the evidence is probably sufficient for conviction.
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.