The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be within a
>month. The question is whether the practice of the federal government,
>re-prosecuting people after they have been tried by the state, should
>continue. The case name is Gamble v. United States.
>
>One of the main arguments for allowing re-prosecutions was "a race to
>the courthouse". If you say only the state or the federal government
>can prosecute for a particular crime, then that theory is there will be
>a state-federal government race to the courthouse to charge the subject.
>
>I think the vote will be anywhere from 8-1 (Alito dissenting) against
>double prosecutions to a 5-4 decision for double prosecutions.
>
>I think the "race to the courthouse" argument will be countered by "that
>right can be given to the arresting authority", in either the judgment
>or the dissent. In other words... If state officers make the arrest,
>then they have dibs on the prosecution, and vice a versa. I'm surprised
>that wasn't raised in oral argument.
Some hick town court could prosecute a mass murderer, find him innocent after 10 minutes of deliberation, and then he's free.