Jeopardy Doubled? Think Twice...

By Bill West

Youssef Megahed, an Egyptian former engineering student at the University of South Florida in Tampa, was acquitted in April of Federal terrorism-related felony charges. Days after his acquittal, Special Agents from DHS' Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Megahed for removal (deportation) violations, reportedly based on evidence that is essentially the same as that presented in his criminal trial. Predictably, there has been an outcry from various individuals and groups protesting the immigration arrest and detention as unfair and tantamount to double jeopardy.

Today, the New York Times posted an article concerning Megahed's case. Substantially, the Times reports on Megahed's supporters against his pending immigration case. The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), an organization for which I consult, also posted an article today on its website. The IPT presents another view of the Megahed caper.

There are some aspects to all this worth consideration.

In the 1990s, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of felony murder charges related to the deaths of his ex-wife and her friend. Subsequent to his acquittal, he was found culpable for their deaths in a civil trial based on essentially the same evidence that was presented in his criminal prosecution.

Occasionally, accused tax cheats are acquitted of tax fraud in their criminal trials. This does not preclude the IRS from aggressively pursuing those acquitted defendants under civil/administrative violations that parallel the prior criminal charges and using the same evidence in order to collect back taxes, penalties and interest.

O.J. Simpson had virtually no one raising the banner of double jeopardy when he faced those civil charges. Similarly, but for the accused tax violators themselves, there is no outcry of "tried twice" unfairness resulting from those civil tax cases. Change the scenario to immigration proceedings against a publicly portrayed hapless immigrant, and the hue and cry from protesting apologists is almost deafening, notwithstanding the concept and legalities being the same.

Mr. Megahed will have his adversarial days in court. Any adverse decisions rendered against him he will be able to appeal...all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if he so decides. The rule of law mandates the judicial process go forward in the Megahed case. Anything else may be just political pandering.