As I understand it, assuming that an individual's actions violated both state and federal laws, there is nothing legally preventing a state for prosecuting an individual for the crime after the President pardoned the individual of the same action on the federal level. Despite this Federal pardons are generally respected by the states for the same reason that Federal trials are usually respected by states, in deference to the concept of double jeopardy.

I'm wondering if this tradition has ever been violated? Is there any precedent for either a state prosecuting someone for an action that they were federally pardoned for, or of the federal government prosecuting someone for an action after a state pardoned an individual for the same action?

  • I am not sure about pardons. There are a number of cases where a person was acquitted at trial under a state law, but charged and tried for federal crimes based on the same events. In particular during the Civil Rights era a number of people who had been acquitted of violent crime were charged with Federal Civil Rights offenses and tried. Sep 27 '19 at 23:02
  • In general state and federal don't respect the others actions because both entities pursue their own goals. Double jeopardy doesn't apply between a state crime and a federal crime because of dual sovereignty. Sep 28 '19 at 17:25
  • If you want to know a case that the subject was charged for the same crime under federal and state law check out Gamble v. United States. Sep 28 '19 at 17:30
  • 1
    @StephanS many state's have in their constitution a method to pardon someone of state crimes. The US president can't pardon someone of a state crime, but a state's governor, or some other body depending on the state, can pardon someone of state crimes in many states.
    – dsollen
    Sep 30 '19 at 14:42

This site is temporarily in read only mode and not accepting new answers.

Browse other questions tagged .