Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Denezpi v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Denezpi v. United States
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: February 22, 2022
Decided: June 13, 2022
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Amy Coney Barrett • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

Denezpi v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 13, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on February 22, 2022.

The court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a 6-3 ruling, holding that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s double jeopardy clause does not prohibit consecutive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign authority or government prosecutes them.[1] Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan as to parts I and III. Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case involved the Court of Indian Offenses’ jurisdiction, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, which prohibits an individual from being prosecuted for the same crime twice, and the dual-sovereignty doctrine. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Is the Court of Indian Offenses of Ute Mountain Ute Agency a federal agency such that Merle Denezpi’s conviction in that court barred his subsequent prosecution in a United States District Court for a crime arising out of the same incident?"[2]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a 6-3 ruling.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.[3]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    In 2017, Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo Nation, entered an Alford guilty plea—waiving trial but not admitting guilt—to an assault charge against an individual known as V.Y., in violation of tribal law in the Court of Indian Offenses of the Ute Mountain Ute Agency. A trial court, the Court of Indian Offenses functions under tribal jurisdiction where there are no tribal courts. Denezpi was released for time already served in imprisonment.[3]

    Six months later, Denezpi was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado for aggravated sexual assault based on the same underlying, substantive events as the earlier conviction in the Court of Indian Offenses. Denezpi filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, citing the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause. The double jeopardy clause prohibits more than one prosecution for an offense based on the same events. Denezpi also asked the court not to allow V.Y.'s testimony, claiming that it was more prejudicial than it was valuable for the case's consideration. The court denied the requests. Denezpi was convicted and sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment.[3]

    On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Denezpi challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss, citing the double jeopardy clause's dual sovereignty doctrine. In Gamble v. United States (2019), the dual sovereignty doctrine stated that a crime committed under one sovereign authority's laws is not the same offense as a crime committed under the laws of another sovereign authority. Denezpi argued that the Court of Indian Offenses is a federal agency, as is the District of Colorado, meaning that the U.S. district court's refusal to dismiss the case violated his constitutional rights and constituted double jeopardy. The U.S. government contended that the Court of Indian Offenses is a tribunal exercising the jurisdiction of tribal law, a separate sovereign authority from the District of Colorado, permitting the prosecution and conviction in latter court.[3] Denezpi also claimed that the district court erred in allowing V.Y.'s testimony. The 10th Circuit affirmed the District of Colorado's rulings on October 28, 2020.[3]

    On March 26, 2021, Denezpi petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case based on the merits. In the petition, Denezpi asked the court to consider whether the Court of Indian Offenses is a federal agency, prohibiting his subsequent conviction in the District of Colorado for the same underlying events.[2]

    Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause

    Text of Amendment V:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Is the Court of Indian Offenses of Ute Mountain Ute Agency a federal agency such that Merle Denezpi’s conviction in that court barred his subsequent prosecution in a United States District Court for a crime arising out of the same incident?[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    The court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a 6-3 ruling, holding that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s double jeopardy clause does not prohibit consecutive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign authority or government prosecutes them.[1] Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the court's majority opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan as to parts I and III.

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote:[1]

    “ The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a person from being prosecuted twice “for the same offence.” An offense defined

    by one sovereign is necessarily different from an offense defined by another, even when the offenses have identical elements. Thus, a person can be successively prosecuted for the two offenses without offending the Clause. We have dubbed this the “dual-sovereignty” doctrine.

    This case presents a twist on the usual dual-sovereignty scenario. The mine run of these cases involves two sovereigns, each enforcing its own law. This case, by contrast, arguably involves a single sovereign (the United States) that enforced its own law (the Major Crimes Act) after having separately enforced the law of another sovereign (the Code of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe). Petitioner contends that the second prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the dual-sovereignty doctrine requires that the offenses be both enacted and enforced by separate sovereigns.

    We disagree. By its terms, the Clause prohibits separate prosecutions for the same offense; it does not bar successive prosecutions by the same sovereign. So even assuming that petitioner’s first prosecutor exercised federal rather than tribal power, the second prosecution did not violate the Constitution’s guarantee against double jeopardy.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan as to parts I and III.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “ Federal prosecutors tried Merle Denezpi twice for the same crime. First, they charged him with violating a federal regulation. Then, they charged him with violating an overlapping federal statute. Same defendant, same crime, same prosecuting authority. Yet according to the Court, the Double Jeopardy Clause has nothing to say about this case. How can that be? To justify its conclusion, the Court invokes the dual-sovereignty doctrine. For reasons I have offered previously, I believe that doctrine is at odds with the text and original meaning of the Constitution. See Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 1). But even taking it at face value, the doctrine cannot sustain the Court’s conclusion. ...


    ... As early as the 1890s, observers expressed concern that the creation of the Court of Indian Offenses could make it “possible to try a man twice for the same offense,” first for a federal regulatory offense, then for a federal statutory crime. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Lake Mohonk Conference 32 (1890) (statement of T. Riggs). As they put it, a federal officer might “tak[e] up” a Native American who might then “spen[d] two or three days in the agency lockup” pursuant to federal regulatory charges, and “then for the same offense [might] be brought before [a federal district] court.” Ibid. Today, that pessimistic prediction has proved true. It is hard to believe this Court would long tolerate a similar state of affairs in any other context—allowing federal bureaucrats to define an offense; prosecute, judge, and punish an individual for it; and then transfer the case to the resident U. S. Attorney for a second trial for the same offense under federal statutory law. Still, for over a century that regime has persisted in this country for Native Americans, and today the Court extends its seal of approval to at least one aspect of it. Worse, the Court does so in the name of vindicating tribal sovereign authority. Ante, at 6. The irony will not be lost on those whose rights are diminished by today’s decision. Respectfully, I dissent.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[8] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[9]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 U.S. Supreme Court, Denezpi v. United States, decided June 13, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Denezpi v. United States: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI," accessed October 18, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, United States v. Denezpi, decided October 28, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued February 22, 2022
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued February 22, 2022
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    8. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    9. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Denezpi_v._United_States&oldid=9117246"