Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the federal government from re-indicting a defendant after a state court has dismissed the charges based on a false affidavit

QUESTION PRESENTED | In Illinois V. Gate, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the Supreme Court ' Stated that, when a Search Warrant ‘has: been Dismissed based on Falsely Sworn Affidavit, and Two State Court has Dismissed the Warrant and its Application in. TWO. Separate State Court:Trial, a United States Attorney C ANNO T. Use the same Affidavit and . Search Warrant known to be false and. Mislead: a Federal Grand Jury to Indict the Same Aquitted defendant the Third Time in a . Federal District Court as done in this Case which the United. States Court Of Appeals Now Overruled in direct Conflict with. a" its Own Rulling and Precedents and that of its Sisters Circuits. “ ; Moreover, the Supreme Court has Stated in Several of of its Precendents that, .a Search Warrant may not Rest only Upon a . MER E-~Affirmance or belief without disclosure of Supporting Facts and Evidence ‘upon which it may be issued, nor should a Issueing Judge Conclude, and Accept without questioning the Veracity of the Evidence, and Affording little if any Weight tothe Police's Conclusory Statement that, the Warrant is Requested based on on]}ly the Officer's training and experience that the Person who arrest is sought has committed a crime. 7} THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS: . . ig Since the various Circuits are in Conflict on the Meaning ‘ of. Duel Sovereignty Doctrine in that, this Court thas Specifically Stated that, when re-trying a defendant, the Reviewing Court my MUST evaluate the second Charges for Bouble Jeopardy Safe Guide ° oe — en i. ‘ Ba and see whether the Second Charge have the same Elements that made up the Same Crime Charge in the First Instance, because, what has been done. in a.State Court is Res Judicata and: CANNOT be Re-Examined on the Premised that, what a State Court has done and decided cannot. be redone or else, Due Process under the Double JeopardyyClause is compromise and defendants right to a Fair trial is violated. wt om 7