LogFAQs > #980756798

I don't know for sure about California's double jeopardy laws, but from the federal perspective this would not be double jeopardy.

The Separate Sovereigns doctrine (a.k.a. Dual Sovereignty doctrine) says that double jeopardy only applies to charges for the same crime by the same sovereign. The federal government and the state governments are considered different sovereigns for this purpose, meaning you can be charged for the same crime by both the federal government and the government of the state in which the crime was committed. SCOTUS ruled to uphold this doctrine as recently as 2019's Gamble v. United States, which was a 7-2 decision (Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissenting). This is a very well established legal doctrine. I learned about it in a intro law for non majors class, for example. It's a basic aspect of double jeopardy law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Dual_sovereignty_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamble_v._United_States

As for California, what I'm finding seems to suggest that the Separate Sovereigns doctrine applies to CA law as well.

Perhaps there is some specific reason why this doctrine shouldn't apply in this particular case, but I'm leaning towards the judge having ruled incorrectly.