Ne bis in idem y Doctrina de la Soberanía Dual: Gamble v. United States

• Jurisdicción: Uruguay
• Fecha: 01 Diciembre 2019

Jurisprudencia

Doi: https://doi.org/10.22235/rd.vi20.1842

Double Jeopardy and Dual Sovereignty Doctrine: Gamble v. United States1

Ne bis in idem y Doctrina de la Soberanía Dual: Gamble v. United States

Javier Escobar Veas1

1Universidad Mayor, Chile

Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9266-0396

Para citación: Javier Escobar Veas, Double Jeopardy and dual Sovereignty Doctrine:

Gamble v. United States, DOI: https://doi.org/10.22235/rd.vi20.1842, Revista de

Derecho N. 20 (2-2019): 225-244. ISSN 1510-3714, ISSN on line 2393-6193.

ABSTRACT:

In Gamble v. United States, the defendant questioned the constitutionality of the dual

sovereignty doctrine under the double jeopardy clause. In its judgment, delivered on 17

June 2019, the United States Supreme Court upheld the application of the dual

sovereignty doctrine, according to which different sovereigns may prosecute an

individual without violating the double jeopardy clause if the individual's act infringed

the laws of each sovereignty. This comment aims to address the reasoning of the

Supreme Court and the rationale of the dual sovereignty doctrine, suggesting the

convenience and necessity of a further study on its limits and possible safeguards

against potential abuses.

KEYWORDS:Double jeopardy, multiple prosecutions, dual sovereignty doctrine.

RESUMEN:

En Gamble v. United States, el imputado cuestionó la constitucionalidad de la doctrina

de la soberanía dual, en el contexto de la garantía non bis in ídem. En su sentencia, de

17 de junio de 2019, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos confirmó la aplicación de

1 Recibido: 13/08/19. Evaluado: 23/08. Observado y corregido: 30/09. Aceptado:

3/10/19.

N. E.: El comentario fue escrito en inglés, idioma de la sentencia, debido a las

dificultades para traducir con fidelidad algunos términos clave en aquella.

Javier Escobar Veas, Double Jeopardy and dual Sovereignty Doctrine: Gamble v. United States. Revista de Derecho Nº 20 (dic. 2019): 225 -244

Revista de Derecho (UCUDAL). 2da época. Año 15. N° 20 (dic. 2019). ISSN 1510-3714. ISSN on line 2393-6193226

la doctrina de la soberanía dual, conforme a la cual distintas soberanías pueden enjuiciar

a una persona, sin violar el ne bis in idem, si la conducta del imputado infringió las

leyes de cada una de ellas. El presente comentario tiene por objeto abordar el

razonamiento de la Corte Suprema y el fundamento de la doctrina de la soberanía dual,

abogando por la conveniencia y necesidad de un estudio profundizado sobre sus límites

y posibles salvaguardias en contra de posibles abusos.

PALABRASCLAVE:ne bis in idem, persecuciones múltiples, doctrina de la soberanía

dual.

Summary: Introduction. The case. Reasoning of the Supreme Court. Comment. 1.

Definition of sovereign for double jeopardy purposes. 2. Is there any safeguard against

the dual sovereignty doctrine? Bibliography.

Introduction

On 17 June 2019, the United States Supreme Court delivered a 7-2 decision in Gamble

v. United States,2 upholding its long-standing dual sovereignty doctrine under the

double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In Gamble v. United States, the defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm,

contrary to Alabama legislation. After the accused pleaded guilty to this state offence,

federal prosecutors charged him with the federal version of the same offence, based on

the same instance of possession. Gamble filled a motion to dismiss, arguing that the

following federal prosecution was for “the same offence” and thus exposed him to

double jeopardy. The District Court denied Gamble’s motion to dismiss, decision

affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit.

In Gamble, the Supreme Court had to address once again the question whether the

double jeopardy clause, which prohibits any person from being punished or prosecuted

for the same offence more than once, bars a federal prosecution after a state prosecution

for the same offence.

2Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. (2019), available in:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_d18e.pdf.