The Constitutional protection against Double Jeopardy insures that the government may not prosecute you for the same crime more than once. Consistent with other protections and rights, caveats to this concept exist. If you are charged with possession of a controlled substance (drug charges) you may be charged and tried in State Court. If you are found not guilty, the State may not bring those same charges again. This is the simplest application of double jeopardy. Many crimes, however, carry the potential to be charged in either Federal Court, State Court or both. Bank Robbery, weapons charges, and drug offenses are examples of such crimes. These crimes also offer an exception to the double jeopardy rule. A person may be charged with possession of a controlled substance in State Court and may also be charged with that exact same offense in Federal Court simultaneously or consecutively. A person charged with a drug offense in State Court that takes his case to trial and is acquitted, may still be tried for that crime in Federal Court because of "dual jurisdiction". Defendants familiar with double jeopardy as taught in high school civics class and then presented with this reality find this caveat unfair and unyielding.
There is no guarantee that one charged with a drug crime will certainly face charges in both State and Federal Court, in fact, most will only face State charges. The Federal Government will not usually charge the "nickel and dime" drug cases; however, the possibility exists. This possibility becomes a greater probability if those caught with drugs are also found with a handgun or assault rifle or if they are known or believed to be part of a large drug cartel. The Federal Government's focus on drug prosecution has always been and most certainly always will be on breaking up drug cartels from both foreign and native origins. The Federal Government has the continuity and money to investigate these vast and organized syndicates. State Courts are only allowed to prosecute those offenses that occur within their borders. Hence the reason that most of the smaller drug cases are charged in State Court solely. That being said, the Federal Government does and will prosecute some seemingly smaller drug cases.
The type of drug that one is charged with possessing often determines whether or not the Federal Government will prosecute the case. Over the years the Federal Government has focused their efforts on different drugs. In the 1980's and early 1990's the focus was mainly on crack-cocaine. In the late 1990's and early 2000's the focus was on designer drugs such as MDMA (ecstasy). Lately, there has been a big push against methamphetamine and the ingredients necessary to manufacture meth.
Methamphetamine is a unique drug in that, until recently, it has not been mass produced by large drug cartels and shipped to the users through different networks of dealers and suppliers, but it has been produced by the user himself. Although with increasingly less access, most of the ingredients of meth are purchasable by the average consumer. Meth suppliers have frequently been regular people with a handful of chemicals, over the counter drugs and a recipe, as opposed to the Central and South American billionaires supplying cocaine.
The unique user/manufacturer aspect to meth has resulted in a high number of average drug users being prosecuted in Federal Court for possession of a controlled substance. The "cartels" of meth are often rural neighbors that have formed an unorganized group with the common goal of gathering ingredients and cooking the product. A principal ingredient in meth is pseudoephedrine, a chemical found in over the counter cold medicine. Meth cooks send out an army of "gophers" to purchase boxes of cold medicine and return with the goods in exchange for a share in the finished product. When the Federal Government prosecutes a collection of meth users and cooks, they may do so in a way that nets the whole group of participants, whether they were cooks or gophers, it matters not. In many cases, those people charged may never be accused of possessing the actual drug of methamphetamine. They may only be charged with purchasing boxes of cold medicine "legally" but did so in conspiracy to produce meth.
The sum of this is that many people charged in State Court with possession of methamphetamine are also charged in Federal Court with the same crime. If one was caught with a small amount of meth in his car, he may face State charges but also it may be discovered that he was also part of a larger "conspiracy" to manufacture the drug despite how small his contribution may have been. He may be charged in State Court, convicted and given a term of years in prison and then be charged in Federal Court, convicted and given an additional term of years in prison. As discussed previously, one may even be found not guilty in State Court, but still be charged, convicted and sentenced to prison in Federal Court or vice versa.
There is no absolute way to insure that drug charges are confined to the State Courts. If charged with a drug crime in either State Court, Federal Court or both, you need an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. At The Roberts Law Firm, we have extensive trial experience at both the State and Federal level. Our attorneys are licensed to practice in Federal Courts in the St. Louis, Columbia and Kansas City, Missouri metro areas and also in Southern Illinois. We have the knowledge and skills to successfully defend your rights. Contact The Roberts Law Firm today.
