Ohio , U. The government must place a defendant "in jeopardy" for the Fifth Amendment clause to apply. The simple filing of criminal charges doesn't cause jeopardy to "attach"—the proceedings must get to a further stage. Indeed, in many cases, the prosecution can drop charges through dismissal or nolle prosequi , then later refile them. Generally, jeopardy attaches when the court swears in the jury.
In a trial before a judge, jeopardy normally attaches after the first witness takes the oath and begins to testify. But the empaneling of a jury— selecting jurors and swearing them in—doesn't actually mean that, whatever happens, the defendant can't be retried. Of course, if the jury acquits or convicts the defendant, the government normally can't re-prosecute.
But if there was a conviction and an appellate court overturns the judgment, the prosecution might be able to retry the defendant. Retrial sometimes isn't allowed, such as when an appeals court decides that the evidence was insufficient to convict the defendant. Criminal trials often end in something other than acquittal or conviction.
There might be a mistrial because of jury misconduct, for example, or the jury might "hang," meaning that its members can't agree on a verdict.
In these kinds of scenarios, even though a jury has already been sworn in and jeopardy has thereby attached, retrial is usually allowed. There are exceptions that can prevent retrial—for instance, severe misconduct by a prosecutor intended to create a mistrial. But, in lots of cases, the swearing in of the jury isn't the actual point of no return.
The attachment of jeopardy doesn't necessarily mean the government can't re-prosecute the defendant; jeopardy must also terminate. In other words, the case must in some sense conclude.
The classic example is a jury reaching a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. Jeopardy also terminates when a judge finds the evidence insufficient to convict the defendant and enters a judgment of acquittal rather than letting the case go to the jury. But just because a case ends doesn't mean that retrial is barred. Again, a hung jury often allows for a retrial. Similarly, if the defense consents to a mistrial, perhaps because of juror misconduct, the prosecution can usually re-prosecute the defendant.
On the other hand, if a judge declares a mistrial over the defense's objection, the prosecution typically must show a critical need in order to retry the defendant. But that isn't as tough as it might seem.
For example, retrial might well be allowed when, despite the defense's protest, a judge declares a mistrial because a juror stopped coming to court. United States v. Wells , F. The double jeopardy guarantee protects only against double prosecution or double punishment by the same "sovereign," or government.
Even if the exact same conduct is at issue, a state prosecuting someone doesn't prevent the federal government from doing the same, and vice versa. Username Please enter your Username. Password Please enter your Password. Forgot password? Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution.
You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number. Related Content Related Overviews autrefois acquit Benton v. Show Summary Details Overview double jeopardy. It stops police and prosecutors from repeatedly investigating and prosecuting the same individual for the same crime without very good reason.
Equally, when a person is found not guilty in court, they know that the case is really over. Being the subject of a criminal accusation can be a difficult and distressing experience, with significant consequences for the accused — who may be innocent.
English law has had the double jeopardy rule for over years, but it was partially abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by the Criminal Justice Act Scotland would follow in In certain, very limited circumstances a person who was acquitted of a crime can now be investigated and put on trial once more. But why was this change made? One of the key reasons is the development of DNA evidence. The ability to match traces at a crime scene to a specific individual has had a huge impact upon criminal cases.
Some people who were convicted of crimes later had their innocence established by DNA evidence. Other people had been acquitted before DNA evidence, which might prove their guilt, became available. If there was compelling new evidence that they had committed a crime, was it right that they could not be prosecuted? That question was raised in some very high-profile cases. The original police investigation of this racist killing was seriously flawed, and did not result in criminal charges.
When the family brought a private prosecution of three suspects, all three were acquitted. The Macpherson Report on the case recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be removed to allow a further prosecution if fresh evidence emerged. The law change helped pave the way for one of those suspects, Gary Dobson, to be convicted of the murder in There have been only a handful of prosecutions brought under the new law. Not all the subsequent double jeopardy cases have involved murder: Wendell Baker was convicted of the rape of a year-old woman in , although his victim had since died.
First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions DPP must personally consent to an investigation being reopened.
The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial.
In practice, if it is discovered that the crime for which a person was convicted did not occur, the conviction would be vacated. User reviews Review. Top review. Decent movie based on a ridiculous premise. Their definition of double jeopardy is so wrong that it insults intelligence. DJ protects a person, presumably found innocent the first trial, from being retried for that SAME crime. Using their interpretation of DJ, I could assault someone, be tried and go to prison, get released, and go assault that person again and get off scott free.
Maybe a small legal point to most viewers, but I prefer to watch movies that don't make me scoff at the stupidity of the central premise. That said, the action is decent. FAQ 2. Is the premise of this film possible? Details Edit. Release date September 24, United States. United States Germany Canada. Box office Edit. Technical specs Edit. Runtime 1 hour 45 minutes.
0コメント