I just found a good article from the Wall Street Journal that describes the issue. Looks legal, but I don't like it at all, personally. Apparently dual trials like this are pretty rare.
September 25, 2007, 4:59 pm
Michael Vick & the “Dual Sovereignty” Doctrine
Posted by Peter Lattman
That’s because a local grand jury in Virginia indicted Vick and three others today on state charges of running a dogfighting ring at Vick’s Virginia home, local prosecutors said Tuesday. The grand jury brought two charges against Vick: one count of unlawfully torturing and killing dogs and one of promoting dogfights.
Huh? Didn’t Vick already plead guilty to a federal conspiracy dogfighting-related charge? He did, and he’s expected to be sentenced in December. In his written federal plea agreement, he said he helped kill six to eight pit bulls days before the first raid and also admitted to supplying money for gambling on the fights.
Surry County Commonwealth’s Attorney Gerald Poindexter told the media today that he pursued the case because “crimes that were not prosecuted were committed in Surry County.” Poindexter didn’t say whether his prosecutors put Vick’s federal court admission that he killed dogs before the grand jury.
Vick’s attorney Billy Martin issued a statement. “We are disappointed that these charges were filed in Surry County since it is the same conduct covered by the federal indictment for which Mr. Vick has already accepted full responsibility and pleaded guilty to,” he said. “Mr. Vick’s legal team will examine these state charges and will aggressively protect his rights to ensure that he is not held accountable for the same conduct twice.”
Law Blog Criminal Law Q&A of the Day: Is it unusual for a local prosecutor to bring criminal charges against someone who has already pleaded guilty to related federal crimes?
Answer, courtesy of Columbia Law Professor Dan Richman: It is indeed, but not unheard of. Usually where the locals and the feds each have an interest in a matter, the two will work out (sometime with loud voices) who will bring the prosecution. And where they don’t, a defendant willing to plead guilty can often work out a global agreement. Rare are the cases in which a turf war escalates into separate prosecutions, but they do happen. And because of the “dual sovereignty” doctrine, a defendant caught in such a situation has no constitutional recourse, since each jurisdiction is free to vindicate its “sovereign” interests as it sees fit.
Law Blog - WSJ.com : Michael Vick & the "Dual Sovereignty" Doctrine
