Blog:Main/Multiplicity - Revision history

Admin1: Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

2013-08-09T19:06:01Z

Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T02:07:02Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:27:33Z

Importing text file

New page

A common argument in federal law has only barely filtered down to state court, and that's the issue of multiplicity, which is rooted in the double jeopardy clause.

I will write more on this later, but I wanted to draw your [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/02/23/09-10242.pdf attention to an opinion] that came out today from the 9th Circuit.

The case involved double jeopardy issues after conviction (and the violation of DJ when the court fails to merge) but these issues can be raised pre_Trial as well. (See a previous discussion when [[Blog:Main/silver_Lining_Sexual_Abuse_Ii|sex abuse II and rape III]] are charged in the same indictment. There you will find a pre-trial multiplicity motion.)

Another situation where you might want to raise multiplicity pre-trial is when the state has alleged both Attempted Prostitution and Unlawful Prostitution Procurement Activity in the same complaint. Attorney Phil Lewis, and others, have prevailed on this argument.

Anyway, if you follow the link to the multiplicity opinion from the 9th Circuit today, it may inspire ideas for how you can take this predominantly federal tool and use it in state court.
{{wl-publish: 2011-02-22 21:00:00 -0800 | Ryan }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, August 9, 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Anyway, if you follow the link to the multiplicity opinion from the 9th Circuit today, it may inspire ideas for how you can take this predominantly federal tool and use it in state court.		Anyway, if you follow the link to the multiplicity opinion from the 9th Circuit today, it may inspire ideas for how you can take this predominantly federal tool and use it in state court.
−	{{wl-publish: 2011-02-22 21:00:00 -0800 \| Ryan }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2011-02-22 21:00:00 -0800 \| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 I will write more on this later, but I wanted to draw your [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/02/23/09-10242.pdf attention to an opinion] that came out today from the 9th Circuit.
-The case involved double jeopardy issues after conviction (and the violation of DJ when the court fails to merge) but these issues can be raised pre_Trial as well. (See a previous discussion when [[Blog:Main/silver_Lining_Sexual_Abuse_Ii|sex abuse II and rape III]] are charged in the same indictment. There you will find a pre-trial multiplicity motion.)
+The case involved double jeopardy issues after conviction (and the violation of DJ when the court fails to merge) but these issues can be raised pre-trial as well. (See a previous discussion when [[Blog:Main/Silver_Lining_to_Sexual_Abuse_II |  sex abuse II and rape III]] are charged in the same indictment. There you will find a pre-trial multiplicity motion.)
 Another situation where you might want to raise multiplicity pre-trial is when the state has alleged both Attempted Prostitution and Unlawful Prostitution Procurement Activity in the same complaint. Attorney Phil Lewis, and others, have prevailed on this argument.