Search

Under the dual sovereignty doctrine the Supreme Court has accepted that different sovereigns may prosecute an individual for the same facts without violating the double jeopardy clause if the act of the individual infringed the laws of each sovereignty. This article aims to analyze the evolution of the dual sovereignty doctrine in the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the doctrine has been highly criticized by scholars, the Supreme Court has persistently upheld it. . Besides, the article addresses the safeguards that currently exist against eventual abuses of the dual sovereignty doctrine, such as the “sham exception” and the “Petite Policy”. Finally, since the previous safeguards have been considered insufficient, the contribution briefly explores the possibility of applying the Eighth Amendment as an additional protection against eventual abuses committed under the dual sovereignty doctrine., Bajo la doctrina de la soberanía dual, la Corte Suprema ha aceptado que diferentes soberanos persigan penalmente a la misma persona sin violar la cláusula double jeopardy por los mismos hechos si es que la conducta de tal individuo infringió las leyes de cada soberano. El presente artículo tiene por objeto estudiar la evolución de la doctrina de la soberanía dual en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema. Además, el artículo aborda las protecciones actualmente existentes en contra de eventuales abusos que puedan ser cometidos bajo la doctrina de la soberanía dual, tales como la “sham exception” y la “Petite Policy”. Finalmente, y dado que las anteriores protecciones han sido consideradas insuficientes, el artículo explora brevemente la posibilidad de aplicar la Octava Enmienda como una protección adicional en contra de eventuales abusos que la aplicación de la doctrina de la soberanía dual pueda generar.

Under the dual sovereignty doctrine the Supreme Court has accepted that different sovereigns may prosecute an individual for the same facts without violating the double jeopardy clause if the act of the individual infringed the laws of each sovereignty. This article aims to analyze the evolution of the dual sovereignty doctrine in the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the doctrine has been highly criticized by scholars, the Supreme Court has persistently upheld it. . Besides, the article addresses the safeguards that currently exist against eventual abuses of the dual sovereignty doctrine, such as the “sham exception” and the “Petite Policy”. Finally, since the previous safeguards have been considered insufficient, the contribution briefly explores the possibility of applying the Eighth Amendment as an additional protection against eventual abuses committed under the dual sovereignty doctrine.

In the Unites States the existence of statutes that allow to declare forfeiture of the property used in certain prohibited ways in civil proceedings without the general safeguards of criminal law is an extended legal practice. This parallel law enforcement system, however, has raised several constitutional discussions. One of these debates concerns the compatibility of the parallel system with the double jeopardy clause: does the double jeopardy clause bar the government from bringing a civil forfeiture proceeding against a defendant that has previously been convicted in a criminal court for the same offence? The aim of the present article is studying the evolution of the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutionality of parallel civil forfeiture proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the double jeopardy clause, analysing the current state of the jurisprudence and its possible further developments.Â

In the Unites States the existence of statutes that allow to declare forfeiture of the property used in certain prohibited ways in civil proceedings without the general safeguards of criminal law is an extended legal practice. This parallel law enforcement system, however, has raised several constitutional discussions. One of these debates concerns the compatibility of the parallel system with the double jeopardy clause: does the double jeopardy clause bar the government from bringing a civil forfeiture proceeding against a defendant that has previously been convicted in a criminal court for the same offence? The aim of the present article is studying the evolution of the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutionality of parallel civil forfeiture proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the double jeopardy clause, analysing the current state of the jurisprudence and its possible further developments., En los Estados Unidos la existencia de leyes que permiten declarar el comiso de la propiedad utilizada en determinadas maneras prohibidas en un procedimiento civil sin las garantías generales del derecho penal es una práctica legal extendida. Este sistema paralelo de cumplimiento del derecho ha suscitado diversas discusiones constitucionales. Una de estas discusiones dice relación con la compatibilidad de este sistema paralelo con la cláusula double jeopardy: ¿prohíbe la cláusula double jeopardy que el gobierno incoe un procedimiento de comiso civil en contra de una persona que haya sido previamente condenada en sede penal por los mismos hechos? El objetivo del presente artículo es estudiar la evolución de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos sobre la constitucionalidad de la incoación paralela de procesos penales y procedimientos de comiso civil bajo la cláusula de doble riesgo, analizando el estado actual de la jurisprudencia y sus posibles repercusiones.

It is sure that the ne bis in idem constitutes a fundamental right, protected by a plurality of national (article 649 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code) and European rules (article 50 CDFUE and article 4 protocol n. 7 ECHR). However, precisely the “multilevel protection” of fundamental rights that characterizes the Italian system risks - paradoxically - to become an obstacle to the wider operation of the guarantee. The provisions that identify the content of the double jeopardy both at national and European level are based upon different concept (identity of the fact; identity of the offence), with a negative effect about the identification of the objective limits of the ne bis in idem. At the same time, the interpretation of the same provisions by the national judges, ordinary and constitutional, and by the Supranational Courts makes the boundaries of the ne bis in idem generated by a final decision even more uncertain. We refer to the hypotheses in which the ne bis in idem is linked with “parallel proceedings”, where the same fact is sanctioned both by penal and administrative dispositions. The reconstruction of the guarantee provided for by the art. 649 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code shall strengthen the legality principle and the implies, therefore, on one hand, to reconsider the sameness of the object of the different proceedings; on the other hand, to avoid casuistic solutions, in contrast with to the legality principle, about the duplication of the different proceedings having the same object.

It is sure that the ne bis in idem constitutes a fundamental right, protected by a plurality of national (article 649 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code) and European rules (article 50 CDFUE and article 4 protocol n. 7 ECHR). However, precisely the “multilevel protection” of fundamental rights that characterizes the Italian system risks - paradoxically - to become an obstacle to the wider operation of the guarantee. The provisions that identify the content of the double jeopardy both at national and European level are based upon different concept (identity of the fact; identity of the offence), with a negative effect about the identification of the objective limits of the ne bis in idem. At the same time, the interpretation of the same provisions by the national judges, ordinary and constitutional, and by the Supranational Courts makes the boundaries of the ne bis in idem generated by a final decision even more uncertain. We refer to the hypotheses in which the ne bis in idem is linked with “parallel proceedings”, where the same fact is sanctioned both by penal and administrative dispositions. The reconstruction of the guarantee provided for by the art. 649 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code shall strengthen the legality principle and the implies, therefore, on one hand, to reconsider the sameness of the object of the different proceedings; on the other hand, to avoid casuistic solutions, in contrast with to the legality principle, about the duplication of the different proceedings having the same object., È assunto consolidato che il ne bis in idem costituisca un diritto fondamentale, protetto da una pluralità di fonti nazionali (art. 649 c.p.p.) e sovranazionali europee (art. 50 CDFUE e 4 prot. n. 7 CEDU). Sennonché, proprio la “tutela multilivello” dei diritti fondamentali che connota l’ordinamento italiano rischia – paradossalmente – di trasformarsi in un ostacolo alla più ampia operatività della garanzia. Le previsioni che individuano i presupposti della garanzia sul piano nazionale e su quello europeo si caratterizzano per un contenuto eterogeneo (identità del fatto; identità dell’infrazione), destinato ad incidere negativamente sull’individuazione della portata oggettiva del divieto di secondo giudizio. D’altra parte, l’interpretazione delle medesime previsioni da parte della giurisprudenza nazionale, ordinaria e costituzionale, e delle Corti sovranazionali rende ancor più incerti i confini dell’effetto preclusivo generato da una decisione irrevocabile. Si allude, in modo particolare, alle ipotesi in cui il ne bis in idem venga in gioco in relazione al “doppio binario sanzionatorio”, in forza del quale un medesimo fatto viene sanzionato, al contempo, sul terreno penale e su quello amministrativo. La ricostruzione della portata di garanzia assegnata all’art. 649 c.p.p. deve muovere dalla valorizzazione del principio di legalità processuale e implica, dunque, da un lato, di ricondurre a unità il presupposto rappresentato dalla medesimezza dell’oggetto dei diversi procedimenti; dall’altro, di scongiurare soluzioni casistiche, contrarie al principio di legalità, in rapporto al presupposto della duplicazione dei diversi procedimenti aventi il medesimo oggetto., É premissa consolidada que o ne bis in idem constitua um direito fundamental, protegido por uma pluralidade de fontes nacionais (art. 649 do c.p.p. italiano) e supranacionais (art. 50 CDFUE e 4° protocolo CEDH). Entretanto, exatamente a “tutela multinível” dos direitos fundamentais que caracteriza o ordenamento italiano – paradoxalmente – corre o risco de se transformar em um obstáculo à mais ampla operabilidade dessa garantia. Ademais, nos panoramas italiano e europeu, as previsões que especificam os pressupostos para a aplicabilidade dessa garantia se caracterizam por um conteúdo heterogêneo (identidade do fato; identidade da infração), destinado a incidir negativamente sobre a definição da perspectiva objetiva da proibição de dupla persecução. Por outro lado, a interpretação das mesmas previsões por parte da jurisprudência italiana, ordinária e constitucional, e pelas Cortes supranacionais torna ainda mais incertos os confins do efeito preclusivo gerado por uma decisão irrevogável. Em particular, alude-se as hipóteses em que o ne bis in idem entre em jogo em relação ao “duplo binário sancionatório”, por força do qual o mesmo fato é sancionado, contemporaneamente, em campo penal e em campo administrativo. A reconstrução da perspectiva da garantia atribuída ao art. 649 do c.p.p. italiano deve partir da valorização do princípio de legalidade processual e implica, portanto, por um lado, a recondução da unidade do pressuposto representado pelo mesmo objeto dos diferentes procedimentos; por outro lado, evitar soluções casuísticas, contrárias ao princípio de legalidade, em relação ao pressuposto da duplicação dos diferentes procedimentos que se refiram ao mesmo fato.