We previously discussed the terrible case of Sureshbhai Patel who was seriously injured after former Madison (Alabama) police officer Eric Sloan Parker slammed him face first into the ground during a confrontation. Parker is now charged on the state level and facing a civil lawsuit. Now he has been charged with violating Patel’s civil rights. As we have discussed before, the question is whether such federal charges are necessary or warranted. Obviously, while based on the same conduct as the state charges, the charges are different. On the state level, it is assault while on the federal level it is the denial of federal rights. The Supreme Court has rejected double jeopardy attacks on such back-to-back charges, but these cases still raise the same concerns of multiplication of charges.
Under the indictment, Parker’s actions deprived the victim of his right under the U.S. Constitution to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, which includes the right to be free from unreasonable force by someone acting under color of law.
The concern is that, even if a defendant is acquitted of the state charges, he faces a trial on the same actions in federal court. This is not to reflect any sympathy for Parker in facing charges. However, this is a recurring concern among civil libertarians over the erosion of double jeopardy protections. There are obviously different charges raised in the prosecutions, but some civil libertarians have questioned the trend of overlapping jurisdictions. At one time, such cases were addressed as state crimes with rare subsequent federal prosecutions, particularly in cases of discrimination. It is now becoming more common – at least in notorious cases like this one with international implications.
Parker, 26, was previously fired so it is not clear if he can afford counsel in this three-front litigation.
The problem is how to distinguish between federal crimes that are sufficiently distinct not to constitute double jeopardy. The Court has adopted a highly permissive approach that has fueled the increased use of parallel federal prosecutions. The foundation for this rule was laid in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), where the Supreme Court held that “where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” The Supreme Court has also emphasized that as separate sovereign powers, the federal government retains the right prosecute for its own crimes. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), stressed that:
“It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws.”
What do you think of these dual state-federal prosecutions?
Source: ABC News
Officer Parker only has this risk of double jeopardy after he has first been acquitted in Alabama courts. Isn’t this concern jumping a gun a bit?
Or is it just so universally obvious, even to Parker’s protectors, that the Alabama courts will acquit the officer, or deliver little more than a slap on the wrist, even with full video of the attack?
Docdennis, the criminal proceeding does not determine that the accused is innocent. It merely determines that the prosecution failed to prove he committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
If I were called as a juror in a federal civil rights case I would never vote to convict, regardless of what the guy did. The reason is that these charges are always political, with the government deciding who should have civil rights protection and who shouldn’t. If the victim is black and the alleged assailant is white, he is ALWAYS investigated and or charged by the Feds. If the victim is black and the assailant is Hispanic, then the Feds try to come up with some contorted “White-Hispanic” classification because in their view, they always have to charge a white person. No black person has ever been charged by the Feds with violating anyone’s civil rights, and of course, according to the Feds, women victims have no civil rights. So as long as the Federal DOJ is in the business of deciding which citizen groups are favored and which are not, I won’t dignify that with any consideration on my part and I’d just vote not guilty.
Isaac, I get excited when you lecture me about civil lawsuits, my business for over 3 decades. Please, a little bit slower this time. Ahhh, thanks!!
In the Zimmerman case it was right not to charge him, but it was wrong to consider it. In the Wilson case I can see considering it after the grand jury.
I have always disagreed with the SC where the charges are identical or almost identical
Nick
There are two facets of justice here. Firstly a person was wronged through irresponsible use of force by an officer of the law/police department. In this, most-including you and I are in agreement. The victim should receive many millions of dollars for two reasons. Firstly, he has been harmed and should receive compensation to pay for costs as well as to offset his pain and suffering. There is no need to get into semantical differences here.
However there is also the profile of this and other police officers’ behavior. A civil action is absorbed by the county, state, insurance industry and we all pay for that, through taxes and/or insurance premiums. Remember the underwriters balance all of this out. They don’t pay in the end. The insured pays, and the insured is us.
The problem is the police and raising the profile of this sort of behavior is the only way to bring the police in line. Charging them does not necessarily mean that they will be convicted. It doesn’t necessarily mean ‘Gestapo’ like results. However it will raise the profile and bring this sort of activity to where it should be, the law and politics. The politicians and lawmakers are the ones who will respond to the noise. So, make as much noise as you can. Charge the f*ck out of them.
The same people here who howl constantly about prosecutorial misconduct exhibit signs they would be one of the worst if given that discretion. The DOJ is becoming Gestapo like. And, it looks like some folks have that in their blood as well. Vengeance is not justice. The most helpful and practical remedy for the victim will be civil damages. I hope he gets a worthy plaintiff’s attorney and receives a hefty 7 or 8 figure settlement. THAT would be JUSTICE in this case.
This seems similar to the situation when one is acquitted or found not guilty of lets say murder and then relatives of the victim sue the defendant for civil damages. The question that I’ve always had in these case is, “If the person is not guilty of the murder what logic is there in allowing him/her to be sued for wrongful death and damages?” Can anyone enlighten me as to this logic?
Alabama is not yet out of its Dark Ages. They are not yet reliable on such things as police brutality or voting rights. Yeah, I am referring to Justice Roberts and his repeal of the Voting Rights Act provision. Justice Roberts needs to retire.
State criminal liability could attach in the “good ol days” before implementation of federal civil rights suits. But in the South they seldom were used to prosecute a cop, even if he abused a white guy. The parallel statutes, federal and state, are not exactly the same. Usually, the feds will lay off unless the state refused to charge, or charged and then went lame. One cannot be charged in federal court for failure to have a dog tag for your dog. But there are other parallel federal criminal statutes out there and no one seems to bitch about those. Like rape crimes in a federal park. Tsarboy faces state and federal charges for the Boston Marathon Bombings. Maybe the feds will fail in their efforts in some fashion and the State of Mass will do something to him. Or one of his pals. Yeah, is there an outrage in Boston if Tsarboy gets charged in both federal and state courts with crimes? No. It is about igPays assaulting a foreigner, not a foreigner assaulting Bostoners.
The (ex)officer was obviously not well equipped for the job, when one considers the minimum necessary level of common sense and an understanding of just what his job was, to protect those that need protection. This is a problem that appears on this blog and in the newspapers on a regular basis.
That he was fired represents a door closing after the horses have escaped regarding the responsibility of the police department. That he was in his own head, perhaps wanting to try out a new move of taking a ‘perp’ to the ground, or whatever is obvious. He was not doing what he was trusted to do, protect the public.
The police department is responsible for hiring this guy and should end up paying the victim all civil penalties ruled. The assault charge and federal charge cannot be against the police department but against the officer. However the officer’s protection under the police department comes into play here.
I don’t see how the officer can be convicted of assault or the federal charge unless he defied a superior’s command and took it upon himself to attack the victim. In the end he will be, hopefully, barred from holding any position of authority in the US. The victim will receive a few million to offset his losses. What is more important is the statement that this makes to law enforcement agencies and their officers throughout the nation.
Regardless of the legal technicalities and the trip to the Constitution, the higher the profile on this sort of behavior the better. Charge the F*ck out of him.
There is ample reason to use Federal charges since many states, especially in the South refused to prosecute whites who were guilty of murdering black persons. The denial of civil rights especially under color of law by cops, who were in fact terrorists, was the reason for this use. While this is not the case here, there is sufficient separate acts which constitute a separate charge. The first one is obvious, the stop was flatly outrageous and illegal.
“I prefer to call it Prosecutorial Indiscretion”
A good and concise list.
It’s modern witch hunting.
Sometimes you have to burn them twice to prove they aren’t really a witch.
I think the point is justice. The color or race of the victim and jurisdiction likely have something to do with the Federal charges. Let us not forget the historical context. LA, MS & AL are notorious for violence against people of color. The local justice system sometimes reflects the will of the local people.
Correction-“victim”
He most certainly was denied his right to walk down a sidewalk unmolested by police which seems to comport with the Federal charge of denial of rights. Why continue to ignore this because of a concurrent state charge of assault? It’s the principal of punishing violations of civil rights that shouldn’t be ignored. This is an especially egregious case and warrants such dual charges. The victim was “ruined” with a broken neck and paralysis. Why is the defendant due more consideration regarding harm to his finances when the bi tim has had severe harm perpetrated on his physical state? This cop assaulted this old man AND violated his civil rights. The Federal charge is correct IMO.
I don’t really understand the Legal Jargon but I am glad the Officer lost his job and hope he cannot be rehired. He is a disgrace to his profession
I do not envision the Framers would approve of today’s situation. My belief is that they would have changed the wording of the 5th from “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy ” to “nor shall any person be subject for the same act or omission to be twice put in jeopardy…”
Having said that for this defendant the federal prosecution is in my opinion a political crime more than it is for an actual violation of civil rights. In what I mean by political crime is that he is prosecuted at the federal level for political reasons and not for justice. I am OK with the state court action.
If one would look at the International Criminal Court as an example. My understanding is that The Hague will not instigate a prosecution if a member state takes legitimate judicial actions against the accused–that is deferring to the local jurisdiction first.
But here, we see no real regard to the civil and criminal cases in state court. Why is this happening?
For one there is an international aspect of this. The unfortunate victim is a national of India and the State Department is receiving, understandably, pressure from the victim’s government to make a prosecution.
A second reason is the media attention to the matter is both national and international in scope. With so much of the strife occurring in the controversies surrounding uses of force by police upon minorities, the federal government has in some ways tried to introduce itself into some of these state cases using the federal civil rights statutes and has been rebuffed and in my view somewhat embarrassed in its lack of success. So, along comes a chance to vindicate itself with an easy case they believe they can latch onto to show they are doing something.
In my view the violation of rights federal case is weaker than it sounds. This is not to say there is not probable cause to arrest the police officer on state grounds for violating state law, the only reason the feds can articulate probable cause is due to the fact the suspect was a police officer at the time of the incident and they could loosely construe federal jurisdiction.
If such a loose standard was applied to all criminal acts in general the federal criminal justice system would be overwhelmed with cases.
A broadly construed law serves the Department of Justice well because it can instigate a federal prosecution nearly every time it chooses. Crimes triggered by an element of interstate commerce is as the courts have said “de minimis”. This provides the ability to prosecute nearly all state firearms cases because they can prove the gun was manufactured in one state/country and was wholesaled to a gun retailer in another state, thus invoking Interstate Commerce elements.
So what are the elements of why the Justice Department involves itself?
1) Public Outrage
2) Rushes to judgment
3) Demonization of the defendant
4) Political advantage with involvement
5) Wide media coverage, especially when international.
6) Politicians interjecting themselves into the case
7) The defendant belongs to a group that is out of favor
8) Nobody is willing to step in and prevent a miscarriage of justice
9) Conclusions are made before any investigation
10) The defendant has few resources and can be ruined by the prosecution alone, even if acquitted.
I prefer to call it Prosecutorial Indiscretion
I think trying somebody twice for the same crime sucks. It is supposed to be unconstitutional. The little Crookshank nuance is just sooo much distraction. As a practical matter they Feds have their hands full with the things they are supposed to be policing, like High Frequency Trading abuses, which they seem to not find time for. Plus, as with George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, their entry can used as a political tool.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter