THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, February 17, 1997 TAG: 9702140037
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A19 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Column
SOURCE: Ann Sjoerdsma
LENGTH: 82 lines
Alex Trebek isn't the only one talking about ``double jeopardy'' these days. Since the verdict in the O.J. Simpson civil lawsuit, I've heard a lot of intense, and confused talk about this Fifth Amendment protection.
Simpson was ``tried twice for the same crime,'' some people have angrily protested; others have mused: ``I don't get it. Isn't this double jeopardy?''
Quite simply, no.
There weren't two criminal prosecutions. Ergo, no double jeopardy.
The double jeopardy clause reads: ``. . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.''
``Offence,'' ``life or limb.'' Read: crime, imprisonment, death.
The civil court deals with injuries (called torts) to private individuals; it assesses liability and money damages. No ``life or limb'' here.
Although Simpson did not ``murder'' Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman, he did cause their deaths. The court system does not seek truth; it seeks accountability. ``Kill,'' a nonlegal term, is not the same as ``murder.''
What's interesting to me is that two other nationally reported and racially charged cases, raising genuine double- jeopardy concerns, have not received the attention accorded the Simpson case. I'm speaking of the brutal 1991 police beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles and the 1991 stabbing death of Yankel Rosenbaum during the Crown Heights, N.Y., race riots.
Just last week, a federal jury convicted two black men of violating the civil rights of Rosenbaum, a 29-year-old Hasidic Jew. One, Lemrick Nelson Jr., had been acquitted of murder in 1992 by a Brooklyn jury.
Similarly, in 1993, two of the four white police officers acquitted by a Simi Valley, Calif., jury were found guilty of civil-rights violations.
In both, a state jury acquitted; and a federal jury convicted. Unlike the Simpson case, two criminal prosecutions occurred. And both arose from what appears to be the same ``offence'' - certainly the same set of facts or transaction. So, what gives?
In drafting the double-jeopardy clause, the framers of the Constitution sought to curb the tyranny of overzealous prosecutors. Not to limit the judicial recourse of victims like Fred Goldman. They wanted to protect ``the little guy'' from the all-powerful State's repeated attempts at conviction for the same offense. From continuing harassment, anxiety and expense. From an ordeal.
Now, here's the King/Rosenbaum rub: The state and federal governments are separate sovereignties, deriving power from different sources. Each has the right to determine what will be an offense against its peace and dignity. While states have principal responsibility for defining and prosecuting crimes, the U.S. government can ``fill in the gaps.''
At first blush, this may seem unfair. But, it is actually superior justice. The federal court can ``check'' the state court, when a check is urgently needed. And in race cases, such checks have been vital.
Criminal civil-rights laws punish a person for interfering with another's federally protected rights. Nelson killed Rosenbaum, a federal jury decided, because he was Jewish and while he was engaged in using a public street. ``Murder,'' a state charge requiring different intent, was not at issue.
Likewise, the policeman who clubbed Rodney King more than 50 times was found guilty of violating King's constitutional right to be free from an arrest made with ``unreasonable force.'' This is not the same as a state charge of assault with a deadly weapon.
But, wait a minute, weren't the King and Rosenbaum defendants subject to continuing anxiety?
Yes, but not from the State. Besides, their anxiety is a small price to pay, compared to the societal cost when rights are threatened.
U.S. civil-rights laws brought the Ku Klux Klan to justice in the 1960s, when state courts, stacked with racist white jurors, wouldn't convict murderers. They still work today when juries that are not representative of the population - all-white in Simi Valley; predominantly black, no Jews, in Brooklyn - render similarly suspect verdicts.
The law can't tolerate racially motivated violence, regardless of provocation. White cops can't beat up black suspects, and African-American youths can't take to the streets to ``kill a Jew.''
When it appears that the State has tolerated such violence, it is appropriate - it is just - for the federal government to intervene. Provided - and this is an important point - it does so in a nondiscriminatory way.
My own feeling is that ``justice'' in this country is evolving. High-profile cases like Simpson, King and Rosenbaum, which teach Americans about their laws and their court system, are a vital part of that evolution. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma, an attorney, is an editorial columnist and book
editor for The Virginian-Pilot.