Criminal Justice

Roach v. Missouri

Edward Roach v. State of Missouri was a case challenging the long-standing dual sovereignty exception to the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.

Case Summary

On June 28, 2013, Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Edward Roach v. State of Missouri, a case challenging the long-standing dual sovereignty exception to the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. Under this judicially-created exception to the Constitution, an individual may be subjected to successive federal and state prosecutions for the same offense. In our brief, CAC demonstrates that the dual sovereignty doctrine is inconsistent with the Constitution’s text and history, and we urge the Court to review the case in order to correct this significant error of constitutional interpretation.

In 2010, Edward Roach was charged separately by the state of Missouri and the federal government for the same alleged criminal conduct (i.e., being a felon in possession of a firearm). After Mr. Roach pleaded guilty to the federal charge, the state trial court dismissed the state charge pursuant to the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. The Missouri Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the trial court’s decision on the basis of the dual sovereignty doctrine.

As CAC’s brief demonstrates, the text and history of the Double Jeopardy Clause establish that the Framers of the Bill of Rights viewed its prohibition on successive prosecutions as an essential protection of individual liberty and an important tool in guarding against governmental overreach and harassment. The dual sovereignty doctrine plainly undermines that protection, especially in an age of expansive federal criminal law and significant federal-state cooperation in criminal law enforcement.

Moreover, since the Supreme Court last meaningfully considered the issue, the Double Jeopardy Clause has been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment as a prohibition against the states. As CAC’s brief shows, incorporation undermines whatever basis may once have existed for the dual sovereignty doctrine. Significantly, the Fourteenth Amendment’s emphasis on protecting individual rights against all governmental action makes clear that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects a fundamental individual right that is undermined whenever successive prosecutions are allowed, even if by different sovereigns.

On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in this case.

Case Timeline

More from Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Torres v. Madrid

In Torres v. Madrid, the Supreme Court is considering whether law enforcement officers who shoot and wound someone have conducted a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment if they fail to capture that person after the shooting.
Criminal Justice
January 20, 2020

Louisiana case is U.S. Supreme Court’s chance to fully eliminate non-unanimous jury verdicts, attorney says

Louisiana Record
“The framers of the Constitution understood that jury unanimity was a critical component of the...
By: Dayna Zolle, By Karen Kidd
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Ramos v. Louisiana

In Ramos v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases.
Criminal Justice
February 20, 2019

Clarence Thomas Resumes a Quixotic Campaign, and Gets a Gorsuch Nod

National Law Journal
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome Wednesday in the excessive-fines case “Timbs v. Indiana.”...
Criminal Justice
February 20, 2019

Supreme Court rules states may not impose excessive fines

The Washington Times
Unanimous ruling incorporates 8th Amendment’s provision to the states
Criminal Justice
February 20, 2019

Supreme Court strikes blow against states that raise revenue by hefty fines, forfeitures

USA Today
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that states cannot impose excessive fees, fines and forfeitures as criminal penalties....