1. Respond to the text down below and explain why you agree and what interest you.

In the first case I read, Abbate v. United States, Abbate was charged with with the crime of conspiring to destroy the property of another even though, he informed Chicago police of what was going to happen. He was charged in Illinois. Later on, Norman McLeod testified against his former co-conspirators in trial federal court. The jury found Abbate and the other two co-conspirators guilty. The three men argued that this conviction violated their Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy right. The issue in this case was whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits federal prosecutions that are based on the same facts that underpin a defendant's conviction under state law? The Supreme Court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to a federal prosecution that follows a state prosecution of the same person for the same actions. The second case I read, Benton v. Maryland, Benton was charged with burglary and larceny in a Maryland court. The jury found him guilty of larceny, but not burglary. He then appealed his case on the grounds that the grand jury who that indicted him were chosen unconstitutionally. The case was remanded and Benton went up against another grand jury. This jury charged him with both larceny and burglary. Benton appealed this and said that being charged with larceny after being acquitted in the first case violated his 5th Amendment Double Jeopardy right. The Maryland Supreme Court that the double-jeopardy clause did not apply to state court criminal proceedings. The issue in this case was whether Benton's second indictment, trial, and conviction for larceny violate the Fifth Amendment provision against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's ruling under the grounds that the double jeopardy clause is applicable to the states because of the due process clause in the 14th Amendment. Overall, both cases were very interesting on how the Supreme Court rules whether something violates the 5th Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause or not.

2. 1. Respond to the text down below and explain why you agree and what interest you.

For this discussion board, I chose to talk about Abbate v. United States and Green v. United States. For Abbate v. United States, the defendant and three other people met with a union official in a Chicago tavern during a strike against a telephone company. The official requested assistance in carrying out a plan to bomb certain facilities in three states. The defendant didn't go through with the plan and informed Chicago police when one person obtained dynamite and traveled to Mississippi. The State of Illinois charged the defendant and three people with the crime of conspiring to destroy property. The defendant and one other person pled guilty and were sentenced to three months in prison and because they targeted facilities that were used by the military and federal agencies, federal prosecutors charged them with conspiring to destroy property essential to the U.S. communications systems. One conspirator testified against his former co-conspirators and the jury found them guilty. The defendant appealed and argued that the federal prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The issue in this case was whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits federal prosecutions that are based on the same facts that underpin a defendant's conviction under state law? The answer was no because the court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause doesn't apply to a federal prosecution that follows a state prosecution of the same person for the same actions. The second case I chose was Yeager v. United States. The defendant was acquitted of conspiracy, wire fraud and security fraud, but hung on 20 counts of insider trading and 99 counts of money laundering. The district court declared a mistrial on the counts the jury hung on. The United States indicted the defendant on the mistried counts. The United States Court of Appeals held that collateral estoppel doesn't bar a retrial in the case, but it recognized that the defendant had the burden of proving that the jury found him not guilty of insider trading and the jury that found him not guilty of insider trading would have acquitted him of insider trading and money laundering. The issue in the case is does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar retrial when a jury acquits the defendant on some counts, but fails to reach a verdict on other counts whose essential elements must have been decided in the defendant's favor by a rational jury. The answer was yes because the Supreme Court held that apparent inconsistencies between a jury's verdict of acquittal on some counts and the failure to return a verdict on the other counts doesn't affect an acquittal's preclusive force.