And how do you draw the line? And how was the federal prosecution misused? Is it your argument that state charges (which are bound up in cockeyed self-defense concepts when ti comes to police violence) preclude the federal government from acting? Doesn’t that turn supremacy on its head?

The federal charges may have been politically motivated, but that’s not a Double Jeopardy issue–you’re mixing apples and oranges.

There are cases where separate state and federal cases might be called for (drug trafficking/tax evasion?) but the King case is nowhere close to one of those.

First of all, how does one separate out vastly different statutes with different elements. For example, the Rodney King case–there is a difference between a civil rights violation and an assault. So how do you develop a mature doctrine describing when a subsequent prosecution is precluded and when it is not?

Second, how do you get around the idea that states have the right under our system of government to punish violations of its criminal law? And, doctrinally, other than ipse dixit, how can a court come to the conclusion that a federal prosecution nullifies that criminal law for that particular case–there’s nothing other than a rhetorical foot-stomp that it’s not fair.