Denezpi v. United States

-

Denezpi v. United States

Unbiased Case Analysis:

            Merle Denezpi is a member of the Navajo tribe. He was charged with raping a woman and later accepted a plea deal in the Court of Indian Offenses. He was given 140 days to serve in jail and was eventually released in December of 2017. He was later charged again and indicted in a federal court. Merle Denezpi challenged the federal court’s ruling arguing that his prosecution violated the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause. He argued on the grounds that the Court of Indian Offenses was essentially a federal court. Therefore, he was charged by two federal courts for the same crime. The district court ruled against Denezpi with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit later affirming.

            The case was brought before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled 6-3 against Denezpi. The Court’s majority did not believe the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause protected Denezpi. Denezpi was charged by two distinct sovereigns. He committed one crime that constituted two distinct offenses. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion not agreeing with the majority’s interpretation of the Constitution. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined him.

Personal Perspective:

            I agree with the Court’s ruling. The Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause is not a broad protection as it is popularly believed to be. It specifically protects citizens from being prosecuted more than once for violating the same law for the same crime. Prosecutors have a variety of ways of getting around the Double Jeopardy Clause such as the dual-sovereignty rule. The same law under distinct governments is considered a separate offense if committed in overlapping jurisdictions. Denezpi was first prosecuted by the Court of Indian Offenses which represents a Native American reservation. He was then charged by the federal government. Although I do not like the narrow protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause, nothing can be done unless the Constitution is amended.

Media Critique and Analysis:

            Unfortunately, Denezpi v. United States did not receive major media coverage. Notable outlets such as Fox News neglected to report on the case. Left leaning outlets such as CNN criticized the Corut’s ruling and seemed to paint Denezpi in a more positive light. Right leaning outlets such as National Review did not necessarily criticize the Court’s ruling but focused on the narrow protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause. CNN noticeably used the term “aggravated sexual abuse” while other outlets used the term “rape” to describe Denezpi’s offense.

Sources:

Denezpi v. United States | Oyez

Double jeopardy doesn’t apply to overlapping federal and tribal prosecutions, Supreme Court rules | CNN Politics

Double-Jeopardy Protections Narrower Than Thought | National Review

Supreme Court rules that Native Americans prosecuted in tribal courts can also be prosecuted in federal court | PBS NewsHour

Comments

  1. MGaddisMarch 3, 2024 at 11:16 AM

    This is a very intresting case while i agree with the 6-3 supreme court ruling against Denezpi especially due to the crime he committed again, his notion to bring up the Double Jeapordy Clause was honestly pretty smart on his part. Because while he did technally get serve twice the courts have so many loop holes they can use to get around this specific clause.

    ReplyDelete
  2. William RileyMarch 14, 2024 at 4:42 PM

    Well, anytime a garbage person convicted of such an atrocity goes free easy, I wish further punishment. If they need to charge him with other assault offenses or anything to get him in prison, find a way. I am glad the court let him be charged. Let him be charged 100 times if he is guilty.

    Shame on the Court of Indian Offenses to be honest.

    Another good post.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Read more

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-
Image
For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Unbiased Case Analysis: Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it. The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer neces...
Read more