PAST ARTICLES AND EDITORIAL BOARDS THE FALLACY OF DUELING SOVEREIGNTIES: WHY THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO
ELIMINATE THE DUAL SOVEREIGNTY DOCTRINE
Kevin J. Hellmann
2 J. L. & Pol'y 149 (1994)
This Note addresses the potential for a criminal defendant to lose constitutional protection from double jeopardy prosecutions. By having to face prosecutions in both state and federal courts for crimes arising under the same act under the doctrine of dual sovereignty, it allows the government to reprosecute a defendant whose conduct has violated both state and federal law irrespective of which level of government conducted the initial prosecution and regardless of the result of that initial prosecution.

The Note examines the historical precedent for this doctrine and analyzes the Supreme Court's reasoning for adherence to it in modern times. He finds that primarily the Court has been concerned that if the doctrine was abandoned that it would lead to state and federal governments competing for the exclusive opportunity to prosecute certain defendants. Mr. Hellmann concludes that the historical reasons for the doctrine no longer exist, that continuing to uphold the doctrine will lead to decreased public faith in the judicial system, and that individual's rights outweigh any remaining policy reasons for continuing to uphold this doctrine.