Jump to content

Draft:Denezpi v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denezpi v. United States, 596 US__(2022), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit prosecuting a person twice for the "same conduct or action" but for the same "offense". The court further held that Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act.

Denezpi v. United States
Argued February 22, 2022
Decided June 13, 2022
Full case nameDenezpi v. United States
Docket no.20-7622
Citations596 U.S. ___(2022) (more)
142 S.Ct. 1838 (2022)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted, Dist. of Colorado; Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit aff'd; cert., granted, 296 US__(2022)
Questions presented
Does a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses trigger the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause?
Holding
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign prosecutes them
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityBarrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kanavaugh
DissentGorsuch
DissentSotomayor, joined by Kagan (Parts I and III)
Laws applied
Double Jeopardy Clause

A member of Navajo tribe pleaded guilty to a charge of assault in the Court of Indian Offenses. Six months later, a federal grand jury found them guilty on a charge of aggravated assault based on the original conviction. The appellant argued that the decision of the district court violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the Court of Indian offense is federal agency.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, authored the majority opinion of the court. The Court use the two-sovereignty principle, where the two offense arising from the same act, can be separately prosecuted without offending the Double Jeopardy Clause, even if they save similar elements and could not be separately prosecuted if enacted by a single sovereign.

Background

[edit]

On July 17, 2017, the apepellant and V.Y., both Navajo tribe member, traveled from Shiprock, New Mexico to V.Y.'s house in Towaoc, Colorado, which is within the Ute Mountain Ute Indian reservation. Inside the house, the appellant barricaded the house and forced V.Y. to engage in non-consensual sex, the appellant, allegedly threaten V.Y. with physical harm if she leave the house, the appellant hid her clothes to prevent her from going to the police. In early morning of the next day, while the appellant was sleeping, Y.V., traveled from the house to the nearby Ute Mountain Ute casino, shortly upon arriving, V.Y. was arrested for public intoxication and for a warrant for an unpaid fine. While being transported to a local jail, V.Y. reported the assault to the tribal authorities who began an investigation, V.Y. underwent a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), the nurse who examined V.Y. found twenty-four injuries on her body, including bruises on her breasts, back, arms and legs, as well as seven injuries on her genitals. Approximately two hours after she reported the assault, police officers arrived in Y.V.'s house to investigate the allegations. When the appellant heard police knocking in the house, the appellant fled through the second floor window into a neighbor's yard where he hide for approximately thirteen hours. After the authorities found the appellant, he denied the allegations and gave contradictory claims, after the authorities further confronted him for possible DNA evidence, he further claim that he and his girlfriend had engaged in consensual sex.

One day after the police confronted the appellant, tribal authorities arrested the appellant and the Court of Indian Offenses charged him of assault and battery with changes of terroristic threats and false imprisonment. The appellant entered an Alford plea to the assault charge, five months after his conviction, he was release from the custody and the remaining charges were dismissed.

Six months later, a federal grand jury indicted the appellant of one count of aggravated sexual abuse. The appellant filed a motion to move the indictment, arguing that it violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause but the district court denied his motion to dismiss. The jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to one year of prison and ten years of supervised release. The appellant appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit but the court affirmed the lower court's decision.



References

[edit]