Double registration, not double jeopardy

A Maryland man must register as a sex offender for the second time, for the same offense. Previously removed from the state's registry, Mr. Respondek lost his appeal to remain off the state's sex registry due to a court-martial conviction. 

In Maryland in 2015, he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. In 2016, a judge took him off the registry and found him rehabilitated. A few years later, the Navy charged him for the identical course of conduct, possession of the same child pornography that led to his state conviction. Fans of the dual-sovereignty doctrine know two convictions for the same offense from different sovereigns doesn't violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy. At court-martial, the former lieutenant was dismissed and sentenced to 5 months confinement, and subject once again to sex registration. 

So how does a federal court-martial conviction necessitate the state to reverse its registration decision? The Maryland appeals court decided Maryland's Sex Offender Registration Act ("MSOR") required the result, due to the way it was drafted to remain compliant with the federal sex registration statute ("SORNA"). So the case turned on statutory construction, which was influenced by Maryland drafting MSOR to qualify for federal funds. For those interested in the exact particulars, the opinion is linked here. 

One issue of interest , though, I would like to highlight here is part of the decision turned on whether Mr. Respondek was in a military jurisdiction when he possessed child pornography in Maryland. The appellate court interpreted that he was, consistent with Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987), that military jurisdiction depends on the status of the person, not the location of the offense. 

All in all, this case is another reminder that while there is not much to criticize with Ashley Judd's performance in Double Jeopardy, the screenplay left out a lot of nuance.