[ntakasaki]

On April 5, 2013, Aleynikov lost his motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy. In rendering the decision, New York State Supreme Court Justice Ronald Zweibel stated that Aleynikov's acquittal in federal court only precluded the federal government from retrying Aleynikov. The state of New York, as a separate sovereign, could continue pursuing charges against Aleynikov.

[dm2]

Ah, I had read that but didn't understand it at first.

That seems wrong (unfair) that the state can go after someone for a crime after the federal government has already acquitted that person of the same crime.

[DannyBee]

This is actually exactly how it is meant to be. Double jeopardy prevents you from being tried twice by the same sovereign entity. As the state and federal government are separate sovereigns, you aren't being tried twice by the same sovereign.

It would be like being acquitted in russia and then charged in argentina.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Dual_sov...

[CamperBob2]

Yeah, if Argentina were a Russian state, it would be exactly like being acquitted in Russia and then charged in Argentina.

[gaius]

Give it time...

[__anders__]

> It would be like being acquitted in russia and then charged in argentina.

No, "it would be like being acquitted in Russia and then charged in Moscow" or "it would be like being acquitted in Argentina and then charged in Buenos Aires".

[DannyBee]

Actually, it's precisely not like that because they are not separate sovereign entities, like the states are separate sovereign entities from the federal government.

This is exactly why it is not like being acquitted in russia and then charged in moscow. Being acquitted in russia and then charged in moscow would be double jeopardy.

[EGreg]

IANAL but I think the double jeopardy vlause f the fifth amendment had been INCORPORATED against the states in the 80s man

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_v._Maryland

[dfc]

The extension of the double jeopardy clause to the states precludes a state from trying a defendant for the same crime twice. It does not prevent two separate sovereigns from trying the defendant for the same crime. The following excerpt is from Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation pages 1490-91:[^1]

  Although the Court had long accepted in dictum the principle that prosecution
  by two governments of the same defendant for the same conduct would not
  constitute double jeopardy, it was not until United States v. Lanza[53]
  that the conviction in federal court of a person previously convicted in a
  state court for performing the same acts was sustained. “We have here two
  sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with
  the same subject-matter within the same territory. . . . Each government
  in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is
  exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.”[54] The “dual
  sovereignty” doctrine is not only tied into the existence of two sets of laws
  often serving different federal-state purposes and the now overruled principle
  that the Double Jeopardy Clause restricts only the national government and
  not the states,[55] but it also reflects practical considerations that
  undesirable consequences could follow an overruling of the doctrine. Thus, a
  state might preempt federal authority by first prosecuting and providing for a
  lenient sentence (as compared to the possible federal sentence) or acquitting
  defendants who had the sympathy of state authorities as against federal law
  enforcement.[56] The application of the clause to the states has therefore
  worked no change in the “dual sovereign” doctrine.

  53 260 U.S. 377 (1922).
  54 260 U.S. at 382. See also Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312 (1924); Screws
  v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 108 (1945); Jerome v. United States, 318
  U.S. 101 (1943).
  55 Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), extended the clause to the states.
  56 Reaffirmation of the doctrine against double jeopardy claims as to the
  Federal Government and against due process claims as to the states occurred
  in Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959), and Bartkus v. Illinois,
  359 U.S. 121 (1959), both cases containing extensive discussion and policy
  analyses. The Justice Department follows a policy of generally not duplicating
  a state prosecution brought and carried out in good faith, see Petite
  v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 531 (1960); Rinaldi v. United States, 434
  U.S. 22 (1977), and several provisions of federal law forbid a federal
  prosecution following a state prosecution. E.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 659, 660, 1992,
  2117. The Brown Commission recommended a general statute to this effect,
  preserving discretion in federal authorities to proceed upon certification by
  the Attorney General that a United States interest would be unduly harmed if
  there were no federal prosecution. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL
  CRIMINAL LAWS, FINAL REPORT 707 (1971).

[^1]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/content-detail.h...

[judk]

If your are going to downvote a lawyer quoting the law, please provide a refutation.

Also, doenvoters, if you believe that Federal govt tramples your rights and power should be returned to local authorities, consider the consistency of your internal logic.

[dfc]

I consider this philosophy to be quintessentially jeffersonian. A rejection of federalism is not a rejection of state power or an argument for anarchy.

[dfc]

Federalism is a bitch, consider state versus federal interests:

  The “dual sovereignty” doctrine is not only tied into the existence of two    
  sets of laws often serving different federal-state purposes and the now       
  overruled principle that the Double Jeopardy Clause restricts only the        
  national government and not the states,[55] but it also reflects practical    
  considerations that undesirable consequences could follow an overruling       
  of the doctrine. Thus, a state might preempt federal authority by first       
  prosecuting and providing for a lenient sentence (as compared to the possible 
  federal sentence) or acquitting defendants who had the sympathy of state      
  authorities as against federal law enforcement.[56]                           

  55 Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), extended the clause to the states.

  56 Reaffirmation of the doctrine against double jeopardy claims as to the
  Federal Government and against due process claims as to the states occurred
  in Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959), and Bartkus v. Illinois,
  359 U.S. 121 (1959), both cases containing extensive discussion and policy
  analyses. The Justice Department follows a policy of generally not duplicating
  a state prosecution brought and carried out in good faith, see Petite
  v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 531 (1960); Rinaldi v. United States, 434
  U.S. 22 (1977), and several provisions of federal law forbid a federal
  prosecution following a state prosecution. E.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 659, 660, 1992,
  2117. The Brown Commission recommended a general statute to this effect,
  preserving discretion in federal authorities to proceed upon certification by
  the Attorney General that a United States interest would be unduly harmed if
  there were no federal prosecution. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL
  CRIMINAL LAWS, FINAL REPORT 707 (1971).

[^1]: Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation page 1490 - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/content-detail.h...

[HeyLaughingBoy]

It's not exactly the same crime. The appeals court basically said he didn't violate any Federal statutes. However it's very likely that he violated New York statutes (taking the property of a New York corporation).

IOW: don't try to take the code your employer paid you to write/modify and use it at another job.

[niels_olson]

> don't try to take the code your employer paid you to write/modify and use it at another job.

What to do about the open source licensing? Presumably some of the stuff was GPL'd.

[PeterisP]

What about open source licencing? If Goldman Sachs takes GPL software, modifies it and uses it internally without distribution, then they are perfectly compliant with the licence.

It doesn't grant the programmer any ownership of the code, nor any rights to take a copy of what he wrote with him.

[jwatte]

But the corporation allegedly removed the GPL license and put /only/ their own license on it. How is this not a Federal copyright offense?

[djcapelis]

It's only an offense if they distribute it because that is the thing that necessitates having a license to distribute the work.

[mutagen]

I think one would leave the source alone and encourage the copyright holder on the GPL'd code to bring a civil suit for violating the terms of the license rather than trying to enforce personally enforce the GPL.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

But GS didn't violate the terms of the GPL since they modified code was for internal use and not distributed elsewhere.

[fsk]

That's a common legal loophole. Many acts are illegal under BOTH state and Federal law. That gives prosecutors two chances to send you to jail, if they decide they really want to get you. To stay out of jail, you have to get acquitted TWICE (and pay for your own lawyers both times).

[EGreg]

What about incorporation of the amendment against the states?