Changes

But [[New York]] was the 800-pound gorilla, meaning it had enormous influence.  It demanded a [[double jeopardy clause]] when it ratified the [[Constitution]] and called for another constitutional convention.  [[New York]] endorsed this version: “That no person ought to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb, for one and the same offence; nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same offence.

But [[New York]] was the 800-pound gorilla, meaning it had enormous influence.  It demanded a [[double jeopardy clause]] when it ratified the [[Constitution]] and called for another constitutional convention.  [[New York]] endorsed this version: “That no person ought to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb, for one and the same offence; nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same offence.

[[James Madison]] responded to [[New York]]’s demand by proposing this clause: “no person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offence.”  But this is not the version that was ultimately adopted, as the Founders preferred Blackstone’s language.

[[James Madison]] responded to [[New York]]’s demand by proposing this clause: “no person shall be subject, except in cases of [[impeachment]], to more than one punishment or [[trial]] for the same offence.”  But this is not the version that was ultimately adopted, as the Founders preferred Blackstone’s language.

Why?  To minimize problems of interpretation.  Blackstone’s language forbids a second trial regardless of the outcome of the first.  Protection against double jeopardy guards against multiple punitive ordeals, not just successive punishments.

Why?  To minimize problems of interpretation.  Blackstone’s language forbids a second [[trial]] regardless of the outcome of the first.  Protection against double jeopardy guards against multiple punitive ordeals, not just successive punishments.

But ambiguities still remain.  The federal government, for example, asserts the power to prosecute someone who was acquitted in [[state]] [[court]] for the same crime.  The theory is that the federal government is a sovereign different from the state government, and thus can act indepedently.

But ambiguities still remain.  The federal government, for example, asserts the power to prosecute someone who was acquitted in [[state]] [[court]] for the same crime.  The theory is that the federal government is a sovereign different from the state government, and thus can act indepedently.