Distribution of Government Power and Judicial Government, Essay Example

The case Kemp vs. the United States is a case that deals with the federal rule of civil procedure 60(b)(1).According to this rule, a party must be given a sufficient opportunity to protect his rights in a proceeding before the court, and the court may not allow a judgment to stand if the party did not have an opportunity to present facts to justify his defenses. This rule was established to ensure that a party is afforded a fair chance to defend his position in a legal dispute.In this case, the court decided whether the federal rule of civil procedure 60(b) does not provide relief from judgments obtained that follow from district court error of law (BallotPedia, 2022). On appeal, this court reversed his conviction on this ground and remanded him for a new trial. Before retrial, however, the federal prosecutor chose not to attempt again to convict the defendant on this charge; instead, using evidence introduced at trial on another count against him-that of failure to report child abuse-the prosecutor charged that offense in tribal court against him. At trial in tribal court, there was no error concerning the elements of either offense.

In another case, Dezepi vs. the United States, a Native American was charged with murder for killing two trespassers on tribal land. According to Supreme Court justices, the man was prosecuted in the Court of Indian Offenses and Federal courts for the same offenses without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. In ruling on Double Jeopardy, United States Supreme Court said,  “the Fifth Amendment proscribes successive prosecutions by federal and state authorities for the same offense.” In this case, Dezepi was charged with a crime in both court systems (Cornell law school, 2022). He was held for trial by an IO for an assault on one man and for assault on another which took place at about the same time he was working on his canoe, literally within sight of these two men. Newton argued that charges should not have been brought against him by the IOs because they violated double jeopardy principles under which no person can be tried more than once for crimes committed by him. Since this was the case with state courts, the court reasoned that it should also be true of federal courts.

The case of Dezepi vs. the United States raised a critical legal question of whether an individual can be prosecuted in both a court of Indian Offenses and a federal court for the same crimes without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. Two distinct legal jurisdictions brought separate allegations of sexual assault and violations of the Major Crimes Act against the person who was ultimately found to be responsible for the crimes. The issue is whether it is constitutional to prosecute someone twice for committing offenses against two separate sovereigns or governments (Cornell law school, 2022). The court decided that this was not a violation but only if the offender had been placed on notice by official sources that they were required to appear before a tribal court first. I agree with the decision since clarifications can preferably be made, and actual prosecutions can be made in the federal court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Kemp vs. United States case was a reversal of the policy, which had been in place since 1914 and was upheld by a federal appeals court. Specifically, petitioners sought review according to that rule because the district court had improperly required them to admit facts into evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 704. The issue before SCOTUS was whether FRCP 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on district courts’ error of law. SCOTUS ruled that FRCP 60(b) does not authorize courts to grant rule 60(b) relief based upon a ruling by a district court judge in violation of the federal rule of evidence 704 and thus affirmed the denial of petitioners’ renewed motion for summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (BallotPedia, 2022). However, if the district court failed to enter judgment after the case was submitted and raised the issue only informally, the proper course is not to treat the resulting void judgment as a final judgment. I disagree with the ruling since there should be some relief in the case when there is an error in the district laws.

References

BallotPedia. (2022). Kemp v. the United States. Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Kemp_v._United_States#:~:text=The%20case%3A%20Dexter%20Kemp%20was,and%20his%20request%20was%20denied.

Cornell law school. (2022). Denezpi v. United States. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-7622.