Yes. From the Fifth Amendment: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” One of the fundamental protections of double jeopardy is that you cannot be retried for the same crime under any circumstances following a valid acquittal.
I’m sure it has, but it’s inadvisable for many, many reasons: all double jeopardy does is protect you from retrial for the same crime by the same sovereign. You can still get the bejeezus sued out of you in a subsequent civil trial for wrongful death or the like (a la O.J. Simpson, although he still maintained his innocence), another sovereign entity like another state or the federal government can try to prosecute you if they believe they have concurrent jurisdiction over the crime you comitted (as in the state and subsequent federal Rodney King trials), every law enforcement entity in the U.S. is going to have it in for you for the rest of your natural life, and then there’s plain old public outrage, pariahhood, and vigilante justice to worry about.
Just for good measure, some law on the matter: "Perhaps the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence has been that ‘[a] verdict of acquittal . . . could not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting [a defendant] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.’ " United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571 (1977), quotingUnited States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671 (1896).
“Since we necessarily afford absolute finality to a jury’s verdict of acquittal - no matter how erroneous its decision - it is difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of guilty.” Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 16 (1978).
[devil’s advocate]Eh, courts are a mistake anyway. The rational answer is to legalize murder. Just as you would have a perfect legal right to kill anyone, anyone would have a perfect legal right to kill you, which might act as a deterrent.[/da]
What’s that you say? This would give an advantage to the popular, the wealthy, the widely beloved? Well, yeah.
That’s why we have laws, & courts, & try to pursue justice.
Justice. Remember that? It is more important to convict the right people of the right crime than to hew to an absolutist construction of jeopardy. If someone gets himself acquitted of a heinous crime, then says, “Oh, yeah, I did that, neener neener!” I think he just waltzed right past double jeopardy & into auto-conviction.
They can sue the shit out of you in Civil Court. They did that to OJ, and won.
And, there is likely some lesser charge that the DA didn’t bring against you that they can get you on. Note one Bernard Goetz, who was acquited of manslaughter but later charged and convicted of carrying a illegal gun. :rolleyes:
Or the cops in the Rodney king case- acquited but then charged and convicted in Federal Court of “violating his civil rights” or some such. :rolleyes:
I use the :rolleyes: because in both cases I think the later charges were 100% politically motivated, even if valid.
