Let’s say someone wearing a mask holds up a bank, in the process killing a bank guard, holding someone hostage, shooting and wounding a teller, etc. They get away. Weeks later a chain of circumstantial evidence leads the police to a suspect, but without a positive ID possible by anyone at the bank, so the case is shaky. Can the D.A. try the suspect for the murder of the guard, then if the jury declares him Not Guilty, indict him for taking a hostage and try him for that? Then if he’s found Not Guilty again, Assault and Battery on the teller; then Armed Robbery, etc. etc. for as many felonies as can be applied to the original action, hoping to eventually luck out with the right jury? Or can the defense insist that all charges relating to a single incident be put on the table at once, and the suspect convicted or cleared in one go?
People certainly have been tried separately in state and federal courts for the same incident. I’m not sure about multiple times in one jurisdiction, though.
As a related matter. What if you were tried and acquitted (or convicted) of the robbery during which someone died but before the shooting victim died (I realize that this is unikely to happen due to the amount of time involved). Could you later be tried for murder?
What if your accomplice was mortally wounded by a guard and died before you were tried, but this was unknown at the time of your trial. Could you later be tried for felony murder.
I wonder if double jeopardy applies in cases where it’s the same incident, but different (although closely related) crimes?
Article on DJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy
I often wonder about this when two someone shoots someone else (one crime) and there are multiple charges such as homicide, conspiracy to commit homicide, illegal discharge of a firearm, littering, etc.
A very brief reading of a couple of cases indicates to me that the answer is yes, DJ applies in such cases. From Blockburger v US 284 US 299, 304 (1932):
From Grady v Corbin 499 US 508 (1990):
Oh my fucking god. I remember that nightmare of a train wreck. Not at all helpful in trying to answer this OP in any sort of succint fashion but if one was around at the time a warm ‘n’ fuzzy reminder both of one of the more (can one insult banned posters in GQ? better not I guess just in case) colorful posters and of some fine people who don’t come around here no more.
One problem that the prosecutor will encounter in a situation like the one described is collateral estoppel. In Ashe v. Swenson, the Court faced a case of sequential prosecutions. Three or four masked men robbed six poker players. The petitioner was tried for robbing one of the players and was acquitted. He was then tried for robbing another of the poker players. The Court said that because there was no doubt that a robbery had occured, the prior acquittal could only have been based on the jury’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was one of the robbers. The prior acquittal prevented a subsequent prosecution for an offense committed at the same time and place.
That means that if it appears that the first acquittal is based on an alibi defense or an (express or implied) claim that the defendant was not at the scene of the crime, a subsequent prosecution will be barred.