Hacker News Reader

Comment by salawat | Hacker News Reader

...is a Presidential pardon final come the next Administration? Or has that not really been tested in court?

There's a short from Legal Eagle about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA

There's also a difference between state and federal charges - even if they've been pardoned, they can still be charged for related crimes.

One thing to note - they cannot be charged with the SAME exact crime in state court (that would run afoul of double-jeopardy).

As you said, though it's not clear, it need to be a different (though potentially related) crime.

This is not true -- double jeopardy applies to the same jurisdiction. You can certainly be charged in state and federal court for the same crime.

Actually, you are correct.

https://www.wklaw.com/double-jeopardy-federal/

Of course, there's still the limitation that the State would need to find it's own law that the accused violated - they have no jurisdiction over Federal law (and vice-versa).

Still... it doesn't sit quite right with me. If someone is acquitted by a jury in, let's say, Rhode Island for murder. It doesn't seem right that the Federal government could step in and hold an entirely new trial thereafter. Seems to fly in the face of what Double-Jeopardy is supposed to prevent.

Isn't that exactly why federal hate-crime legislation exists? To allow a do-over in federal court if juries in some jurisdictions ignore crimes against some victims?

And for that matter, even if acquitted in a criminal trial, someone can be found guilty in a civil trial (with a lower standard of evidence). See, famously, OJ Simpson.

I suppose, but for that you cannot be sued merely for committing a crime - you need to prove tangible personal direct damages.

...and that can happen regardless of criminal conviction.

A pardon requires delivery and acceptance. (Actually, I think delivery is incomplete without acceptance.) Theoretically an incoming president could recall the pardon if it hasn't been delivered. Not sure what may constitute as delivery; or acceptance, for that matter. I don't think the manner of delivery or acceptance has been tested, let alone enumerated. If it's as simple as a phone call, then presumably nothing could be done.

I think a more interesting question is whether there's a specificity requirement. AFAIU, that hasn't been answered, either.

There was an even more interesting question raised on r/NeutralPolitics about whether the pardon has to even be made public. It seems there's an interpretation of the law where the pardon only becomes public when the recipient makes use of it in a public court.

Also talk of putting it on the secret computer for national security until use.

Is that before or after the coifing of the sacrificial goat?

Why would it need to be public? The Constitution does not stipulate that limitation.

This is literally all it says...

> he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Because "pardon" is not defined anywhere so the nation has to decide what it means.

This is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the pardon power of the Constitution.

What gives you the impression pardons are limited to those that are "delivered" and/or "accepted". How would that even be legally demonstrated to a court.

What gives you the impression pardons are limited to those that are "delivered" and/or "accepted".

The Supreme Court apparently ruled that way in a case a long time ago and that precedence has never been challenged (or come up again for that matter)

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IRZ9FzWEA

But realistically if they tried to revoke a pardon today it would certainly go to the Supreme Court again and they would almost certainly rule the other way.

A Youtube video of someone's opinion is not a reliable source.

Looking up Grants revocation of Johnson's pardons - it's hard to find details, but it does seem like a Federal judge took issue that they were not delivered prior to the new president revoking them.

Given that there's no such limitation in the Constitution, I wonder if it would hold up to SCOTUS. ...and maybe that's why they announce them publicly these days.

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/01/can-a-presidential-pardo... discusses — in 1869 one got rescinded because the original was never delivered (but according to the post that isn't binding).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com