1.1. Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996)

Do you believe that it was fair to subject the Los Angeles police officers to the expense and emotional stress of two trials? As the attorney general to the United States, would you have advised President George H. W. Bush to bring federal charges against the officers following their acquittal by a California jury?

Koon addresses whether Officer Koon and Powell’s prison sentences were too lenient. The dual sovereignty doctrine is based on the recognition that an individual is a citizen of a state as well as of the United States and is subject to the laws of these two jurisdictions. A single act may violate the laws of both entities. As a result, a state prosecution is not considered to bar federal prosecution, and federal prosecution does not bar state prosecution. A prohibition on successive prosecutions would have undesirable consequences. A state, for instance, may view a crime as relatively minor, while the federal government may consider that the crime should be harshly punished. The federal government historically has considered the protection of individuals against racial discrimination and police abuse to be an important area. We know that states, at times, have engaged discriminatory practices and that the federal government has played a vital role in combating these practices. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The doctrine of dual sovereignty resulted in Officers Koon and Powell being confronted with successive prosecutions for crimes based on the same facts. Double jeopardy only applies where an individual is prosecuted for precisely the same offense by the same jurisdiction. It is true that these were not precisely the same offense, but this would seem to violate the “spirit” of the prohibition on double jeopardy. The federal prosecution also seems to demonstrate a lack of respect for the judgment of the California jury and seems to be using the criminal justice system to achieve political goals. Of course, the California verdict may be viewed as biased and discriminatory and hence demands federal prosecution. It should be noted that Rodney King did not testify at the first trial. He did testify at the federal trial and stated that he heard the officer’s utter racial epithets. As attorney general, you may want to use this case to communicate that racial discrimination on the part of law enforcement officers is unacceptable.