You cannot be tried twice for the same crime has for years kept the courts free of thousands of refilings…new or possible new evidence…BUT in capital cases such as murder I believe the law must be changed.
If a previously convicted person is serving life without parole…for example…and new evidence such as DNA demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the criminal is NOT GUILTY, he is freed.
This should also work to the contrary…If a person such as the well known golfer from Florida who was found by jury NOT to have murdered 2 individuals…can currently tell the world he killed them and still continue on as he is now…same true if one came up with irrefutable evidence that the culprit committed the capital crime.
I realize that allowing new irrefutable evidence might clog up the courts…and give the prosecutor on the innitial trial a chance to clear up sloppy work, IMO no proven murderer should be walking the streets…same true with those found not guilty in other capital cases.
Here’s a theoretical. I’m a prosecutor in Madsamland, where we’ve done what you want, and removed laws against double jeopardy in capital cases. A murder is committed, and I’m pretty sure you did it, so you’re arrested and stand trial. You’re acquitted. So, I say, “Dang, I know he did it.”, so while you’re standing in the courtroom shaking hands with your lawyer for getting you off, you’re arrested again. Same thing happens. Repeat ad nauseum. Because there are no laws against double jeopardy, I’m allowed to keep going until I find a friendly jury, and you’re never going to be safe from the threat of prosecution.
You wish to continue to try someone over and over and over until you finally get the verdict you want? That is the very reason the double jeopardy standard exists in the first place. Con.
I also believe that Double Jeopardy should have more Daily Doubles.
That’s a bit of a stretch. You don’t need to assume that the prosecutor would be allowed to send you back to trial ten times in a row if he feels like it.
Fo instance, new evidences could be necessary, and could have to be compelling enough to mandate a new trial. I’m thinking here about the everse situation. I don’t know how iot works in the USA, but over here, someone found guilty can only be tried again if there are new evidences and the highest french court, which is the only one competent, judge them as particularily compelling (and actually too much so…new trials are extremely rare. The last time, the main new evidence was the proved presence of a famous serial killer on the scene of a crime someone else had been sentenced for). I assume a similar system could be used in the reverse situation, for instance. The culprit publically admitting to the crime or the skeletons being found in his closet by cops searching for marijuana could do the trick. Some court could be in charge of deciding whether the newly discovered evidences make acceptable a new trial.
I understand that the double jeopardy is an absolute principle in the USA. I assume it could be watered down without going to the extreme you’re describing of the accused bein sent back to trial as many times as it takes for some jury to eventually find him guilty.
Not that I’m supporting such a change. I’m just saying it could be implemented in some way that would prevent the issue you’re mentionning. There might be other issues or principles at stakes, but this concern was somehow exagerated.
That’s a bit of a stretch. You don’t need to assume that the prosecutor would be allowed to send you back to trial ten times in a row if he feels like it.
Fo instance, new evidences could be necessary, and could have to be compelling enough to mandate a new trial. I’m thinking here about the everse situation. I don’t know how iot works in the USA, but over here, someone found guilty can only be tried again if there are new evidences and the highest french court, which is the only one competent, judge them as particularily compelling (and actually too much so…new trials are extremely rare. The last time, the main new evidence was the proved presence of a famous serial killer on the scene of a crime someone else had been sentenced for). I assume a similar system could be used in the reverse situation, for instance. The culprit publically admitting to the crime or the skeletons being found in his closet by cops searching for marijuana could do the trick. Some court could be in charge of deciding whether the newly discovered evidences make acceptable a new trial.
I understand that the double jeopardy is an absolute principle in the USA. I assume it could be watered down without going to the extreme you’re describing of the accused bein sent back to trial as many times as it takes for some jury to eventually find him guilty.
Not that I’m supporting such a change. I’m just saying it could be implemented in some way that would prevent the issue you’re mentionning. There might be other issues or principles at stakes, but this concern was somehow exagerated.
Well, if the pace of justice increases to the point where a complete trial can be conducted in a day or so, then maybe a retrial after the highest court approves it might be more palatable. As it stands, though, with complex cases taking perhaps years to process, I dislike the notion of a prosecutor who is being paid for his time going after a defendant who is not, with the ultimate result being either a conviction or the defendant’s bankruptcy.
If I was tried for a major felony it would wipe me out financially, no doubt strain my personal life, and prevent me from working while I’m busy tied up in court. If a prosecutor is going to put someone through the wringer like that he’d better believe his chances of convicting are decent. The prosecution has vast resources at his disposal when compared to the average citizen. I couldn’t really afford to stand trial once let alone a second time for the same offense. That’s the real reason for double jeopardy I think.
We had absolute double jeopardy here in the UK until a couple of years ago. Now, for certain serious crimes (or is it just murder? Not sure about that) a previously acquitted defendant can be retried but ONLY if there is new evidence, which means it’s just not possible to keep prosecuting again and again until he’s nailed.
I don’t know how often the new law has been used, don’t recall any cases at all myself. One reason given for the change was that modern DNA technology could bring new evidence to light in many old cases.
Once again, my opinion is that in a case where the suspect is voted not guilty by a jury of his peers in a capital case as murder, the prosecutor who may have done a less than adequate job should NOT be given a chance to try the case again. But…if the suspect later boasts that he DID the crime and offers details that prove he did beyond all reasonable doubt, he should be retried.
Secondly, if NEW evidence comes up that offers irrefutable proof that the criminal was guilty, he shouldn’t be allowed to walk around free.
Perhaps the SCOTUS should determine whether the person should be tried again…One chance only and the suspect should not have to pay any lawyers fees for the second trial.
Also if the jury does convict a person, new evidence may support his innocence freeing the wrongly convicted individual. Why allow the reversal and not the above…
Can’t they already try you again if you were to do that? What prevents people from doing that now, if they had no fear of criminal prosecution? Maybe a lawyer can clear this up, but it seems like they’d be able to try you again.
Well, isn’t the ultimate arbitrer of “reasonable doubt” supposed to be a jury? Doesn’t the evalutation of new evidence require a group of judges to make that determination?
Same question.
Yikes. What kind of lawyers would be willing to work for free (or public-defender’s pay) on the second trial, which presumably will have much tougher evidence against a defendant? If a defendant wants to keep the high-priced lawyer from his first (acquitted) trial, can he? Who pays the lawyer’s fees?
Because those reversals reduce the state’s opportunity to abuse individuals, while retrying them increases it.
As an afterthought, consider the following scenario: A trial is conducted and the defense attorney successfully cross-examines all prosecution witnesses, finding holes in their accounts, motives to lie or exaggerate, etc. Whemn the prosecution rsts, the defense moves for an acquittal on the grounds the the prosecution has not adequately proved its case and the judge agrees. Without actually mounting a defense, the defendant gets an acquittal just as valid as one given to a defendant who took the stand, denied his involvement and was acquitted by a jury.
Some time later, DNA evidence is found indicating the the defendant is, in fact, the killer. The defense attorney (however he is paid) challenges this evidence but less successfully, so an actual defense is required. The defendant testifies the killing was justifiable self-defense. Now what? Does the prosecutor have to bring back all his original witnesses or read their testimony into the record? How does this retrial work, anyway, especially years later when witnesses may be dead or unavailable?
I occasionally flirt with the idea of a person voluntarily giving up their Double Jeopardy protection rights if they later admit to their crime.
I first started flirting with the idea during Lemrick Nelson’s trials. Nelson was accused of stabbing Yankel Rosenbaum to death in Brooklyn in 1991 during the Crown Hieghts riots.
Nelson was acquitted of murder charges during the first trial, where his defense was that he didn’t stab Rosenbaum (who identified Nelson as the stabber before he died).
He was later tried on civil rights charges (since the stabbing was accompanied by shouts of “Get the Jew”). During his civil rights trial, he changed his position, now claiming that he did stab Rosenbaum, but was drunk on beer at the time.
I’m not actively seeking to have people retried by voiding DJ protection in such cases - rather I’m seeking to keep their mouths shut and prevent them from changing their stories to benefit themselves later on.
It should be an open and shut case for a perjury conviction. The 5th amendment allows a defendant to keep his mouth shut, but shouldn’t allow out-and-out false testimony. He lied under oath either in the murder trial or the civil rights trial.
If he lied under oath (something I don’t think he did either) then there should be a perjury charge.
But, in any event, his lawyer, as his representative, made the claim in the first two trials that Nelson did not stab Rosenbaum. I don’t advocate going after Nelson for lies his lawyer told, but I do think that his later admission that he did stab Rosenbaum should open the case up for possible retrial.
(Of course, I’m not advocating changing things ex-post-facto WRT Nelson. But I think that this would at least hold defendants to their stories rather than allowing them to constantly change them as suits their needs).
So if I’m acquitted for murder, and I haven’t testified under oath, I can walk outside after the trial, and admit I did it? If so, has this ever happened? If not, why?