NCJ Number
142013
Journal
White-Collar Crime Reporter Volume: 6 Issue: 10 Dated: (November/December 1992) Pages: 1-12
Date Published
1992
Length
12 pages
Annotation
Successive scheduling controversies over trying the elderly Clark Clifford may portend that State and Federal courts and prosecutors must remain sensitive to each other's prerogatives and to the defendants they charge.
Abstract
State prosecutors are increasingly able and willing to initiate high profile prosecutions before their Federal counterparts are ready to take action. In Clifford's case, the Manhattan, New York, district attorney's office started an investigation of the Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) and those allegedly involved with it. In the intervening months, Federal prosecutors attempted to retake the lead in prosecuting Clifford and his law partner, Robert Altman, for their alleged role in the BCCI situation. Federal prosecutors obtained Clifford's indictment in July 1992. Manhattan prosecutors were present when the Federal trial date of October 26 was set, but did not file a pleading to address the scheduling issue. Instead, a New York State court set a trial date of October 22, 4 days before the Federal trial. Counsel for Clifford argued that New York's double jeopardy statute would and should bar the State case following a Federal prosecution. The U.S. Department of Justice relied on the policy outlined in United States v. Petite to support their argument to continue the Federal trial. Clearly, however, the dual sovereignties doctrine and the Anti-Injunction Act impeded the Federal court's ability to protect the trial date set, even if Federal prosecutors had ultimately wanted to proceed first. Due to the difficulties and controversies associated with scheduling the Clifford case, it may be necessary to allow Federal courts greater control over competing State and Federal prosecutions.