Different laws, though. Someone can be properly innocent of a crime in one jurisdiction and properly guilty in another with the same act.
What is the flaw in the reasoning here?
The dual-sovereignty doctrine is not an exception to the double jeopardy right but follows from the Fifth Amendment's text. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being "twice put in jeopardy" "for the same offence." As originally understood, an "offence" is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign. Thus, where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws and two "offences." Gamble attempts to show from the Clause's drafting history that Congress must have intended to bar successive prosecutions regardless of the sovereign bringing the charge. But even if conjectures about subjective goals were allowed to inform this Court's reading of the text, the Government's contrary arguments on that score would prevail.
The existence of separate sovereigns is perhaps the problem.
I get it, we have states. It serves in some sense as a hierarchy of government. But then it also allows for somebody to be tried twice for same crime on a loophole like this.
I don't think we're so different that we need different laws regarding personal behavior based on location, with maybe a very few exceptions.
