Fact check: Can a person be charged with the same crime in both federal and state court?

1. Summary of the results

Yes, a person can be charged with the same crime in both federal and state court. This is established through the dual sovereignty doctrine, which creates an exception to the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

The key legal principle is that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply between federal and state governments because they are considered separate sovereigns with distinct jurisdictions ^[4]. This means that if an act violates both federal and state law, both governments can prosecute the defendant for the same underlying conduct without violating constitutional protections against double jeopardy ^{[1] [5]}.

The Supreme Court has upheld this exception, confirming that state and federal governments can each prosecute an individual for the same action if it violates laws at both levels ^[5]. This dual prosecution capability stems from the separate but overlapping jurisdictions of state and federal court systems ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements:

• Practical limitations: While dual prosecution is legally permissible, the analyses don't address how frequently this actually occurs or what factors influence prosecutorial decisions to pursue cases at both levels.
• Timing considerations: The sources don't clarify whether there are any procedural requirements about the sequence of prosecutions or coordination between jurisdictions.
• Defendant protections: Missing discussion of any practical safeguards or plea agreement considerations that might protect defendants from facing dual prosecution.
• Historical evolution: The analyses reference Supreme Court decisions but don't provide the historical development of this doctrine or any ongoing legal challenges to it ^{[6] [7]}.
• Specific crime categories: No information is provided about whether certain types of crimes are more likely to face dual prosecution than others.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is neutral and factual - it simply asks about a legal possibility without making any claims that could be misleading. However, the question's simplicity could lead to misunderstanding because:

• It doesn't acknowledge the complexity of the dual sovereignty doctrine that makes this possible ^{[2] [3]}
• It might imply that such dual prosecution is common practice, when the frequency and circumstances aren't addressed in the available analyses
• The phrasing doesn't distinguish between the legal possibility and the practical reality of dual prosecution decisions

The question would benefit from additional context about the constitutional framework and practical considerations that govern when such dual prosecutions actually occur.