Bill to Close So-Called Double Jeopardy Loophole Would Not Affect Manafort, Cohen
The legislation is unlikely to pass as it's currently written for two reasons.
August 23, 2018 at 03:40 PM
7 minute read
Paul Manafort's conviction earlier this week may add impetus to a legislative effort by Albany Democrats that would offer a path for state prosecutors to pursue criminal cases against persons on state crimes even if the defendant has received a presidential pardon from federal charges.
Bill sponsors stressed however that even if the former campaign chairman for President Donald Trump were to receive a pardon from his conviction on eight criminal charges, legislation to close New York's so-called double jeopardy loophole still wouldn't allow state prosecutors to charge him with state crimes.
They hope knowledge of that fact, in addition to Manafort's conviction (a federal jury in the Eastern District of Virginia was deadlocked on 10 of the 18 counts), will spur their cause, which has so far fallen on deaf ears among the state Senate's Republican majority.
“I hope people realize that the ship has really sailed for those acts that underly the federal charges that have already been brought on this issue for Manafort because the law was not in place when his federal case was brought,” said Sen. Todd Kaminsky, D-Nassau, a sponsor of the bill.
That's because jeopardy attached in Manafort's case when the jury was seated, Kaminsky said. He's safe from being charged by state prosecutors for the same acts, though there are a few exceptions that deal with state tax issues and unrelated state acts. The legislation also would not apply to Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen after he took a guilty plea earlier this week.
Kaminsky, along with Assemblyman Joe Lentol, D-Brooklyn, introduced the bill earlier this year to close the double jeopardy loophole in New York, a provision that currently prohibits state prosecutors from charging someone with a state crime based on the same set of facts used to try someone on federal charges.
The bill was born from a letter sent from the state attorney general's office to the Legislature and Cuomo this spring urging them to consider a change in the law. The letter was written by former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, but support for the legislation has continued under current Attorney General Barbara Underwood.
“This office has been urging Albany to close the loophole in New York's double jeopardy law since April,” said Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for Underwood. “President Trump has repeatedly abused his pardon powers to undermine the rule of law and, especially in light of recent events, it's more urgent than ever that the state Legislature act.”
The bill gained renewed support on Thursday from Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who said to reporters in Owego, New York, that he would sign the bill immediately if lawmakers approved it.
“I believe the state of New York should immediately pass a bill that says even if the president pardons someone, they can still be prosecuted in the state of New York,” Cuomo said. “So, if they try to get political with the justice system, which is not beyond them, it will not work.”
Kaminsky said the case is closed for state prosecutors on Manafort, but state charges against any future targets of the probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller could be possible if Republicans are convinced to approve his bill.
“If you think about a whole bunch of different names, a whole bunch of different targets we don't know about now that Mueller might have lined up and might want to speak with, we really are operating against the clock,” Kaminsky said.
The legislation is unlikely to pass as it's currently written for two reasons. Lentol said there are flaws in the bill that he wants to work with legal experts to resolve before it's considered in the Assembly.
The legislation could backfire in ways that may not sit well with Democrats, who hold the majority in the chamber, Lentol said. If someone is pardoned on federal charges related to civil disobedience, for example, the legislation would allow a state prosecutor to bring their own charges if they disagreed with the pardon.
“I think we could do this and really make matters worse for people who are in a situation to get pardoned and have to get retried again,” Lentol said. “I think that these unintended consequences need to be vetted before we move forward.”
There are also possible constitutional conflicts in the bill as it's written now, Lentol said. Legislating on situations where a person may be tried twice for the same crime may be especially problematic, he said.
The bill would also need approval from the Republican majority in the state Senate, including Sen. Pat Gallivan, R-Erie, who chairs the Crime Victims, Crime, and Correction Committee in the State Senate. He was against the bill when it was introduced earlier this year and said on Thursday the Manafort conviction hasn't changed his mind.
“I think double jeopardy is there to protect individuals from government, essentially, and it goes back as a constitutional basis and when we start introducing laws to change what the Constitution protects, that presents problems,” Gallivan said.
It's not a loophole, Gallivan said, it's part of state law. He questioned why Democrats want to change the effects of a presidential pardon while leaving unexamined Cuomo's exercise of his power to grant clemency.
“I think this is just picking and choosing what you're saying it's OK for the president to do,” Gallivan said. “The question I would pose is why is this OK for the president to do but the governor can grant conditional pardons to 36,000 people?”
He was referring to Cuomo's executive order earlier this year restoring voting rights to individuals on parole. Senate Republicans are planning hearings on the governor's power to grant such pardons for sometime this fall.
Gallivan said he would not budge on the legislation as it's currently written, but may feel differently if it offered a change to the state's constitution.
“If the legislation was proposing a constitutional amendment, then perhaps I would look at it differently,” Gallivan said. “But it's not. It's using state law in some sense to get around the Constitution and provide exceptions. Some will question whether it's constitutional or not.”
Even if Gallivan and his Republican colleagues agreed to support the bill, the earliest opportunity for it to become law wouldn't be until January, which is when lawmakers return to Albany for a session. There have been rumors of a special session throughout the summer, but none have come to fruition.
Kaminsky said the bill's best chances would be under a change of leadership in the Senate. In November's election Democrats are hoping to regain a Senate majority for the first time in nearly a decade.
Even if that happens, the bill will still need amendments to win the support of Lentol and his colleagues in the lower chamber. Neither chamber passed the measure through committee before the session ended in June.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 2On the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
- 3Review of Ex-parte orders by the Appellate Division
- 4'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
- 5How Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250