I was looking at the cover of an Enquirer (the tabloid newspaper) and noticed a caption that said OJ Simpson has recently confessed to killing Nicole Simpson and the confession, having been caught on tape, is being used to blackmail OJ.
An argument between two of my co-workers quickly ensued wherein person A claims he can confess on national tv and still not be tried again for Nicole’s murder due to double jeopardy. Person B claims that if new evidence, (meaning his confession) is introduced, then he can be tried for the murder of Nicole once again.
I said I would find out and let them know the truth.
IIRC, Simpson did not testify at his criminal trial. He did, however, at his civil trial. I don’t know if they asked him at that trial outright “Did you kill Nicole?”
Just to complicate things (as any good lawyer does), Bricker is correct that the State of California could not retry O.J. Simpson for the murder of Nicole and Ron, but that may not preclude the Federal Government from doing so. In 1959 the Supreme Court held in Bartkus that the double jeopardy clause may not protect defendants in cases involving dual sovereignity. A well known example is the officers involved in the Rodney King beating who were initially acquitted by a California jury, but then successfully prosecuted in federal court.
If there was a videotape showing O.J. (cough KILLER cough) actually confessing to the crime, it would be my guess that the local U.S. Attorney would jump at the chance to charge him with violating Nicole and Ron’s civil rights.
Wouldn’t the U.S. Attorney have to show that he killed Nicole becuase of her race/creed, etc. If not, couldn’t the Feds step in on any murder where the state didn’t convict?
No. He’d have to show to a jury that O.J. plotted to deny her her civil rights. They would argue that killing someone automatically denies them those rights.
However, most U.S. attorneys don’t want to get involved in this sort of case.
But that means that, in theory, every murderer could be tried twice if the Feds chose to get involved (provided the Feds didn’t have sole jurisdiction to begin with), correct ?
There are no major civil rights issues in this case; it’s just a straightforward, albeit nasty, domestic double murder. If the Feds were to jump in, Simpson could reasonably claim that their involvement is a double jeopardy violation. The Supreme Court would have to toss a coin between the 10th and 14th Amendments (I think the states’ rights arguments would win soundly, myself), and the Feds are unlikely to bring a case that might set a precedent barring them from further civil rights cases.
As for jeopardy in cases of mistrial, dismissal, etc: the circumstances and timing are crucial. In the very early stages of a court proceding (around the arraignment, for example), the charges can be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the charges can be refiled if the prosecutor finds more evidence. At some stage, however, the prosecutor is required to disclose all evidence to the defense and (typically, though it varies by venue) once the jury impanelling begins, jeopardy “attaches” and a dismissal is the equivalent of an acquittal: i.e. no retrial. As a result, a prosecutor has to make a hard decision about how much time he can spend gathering evidence before he goes to trial. The 6th Amendment enshrines the right to a speedy trial, so a prosecutor can’t wait too long, or he’ll miss his chance entirely.
In the event of a mistrial through “manifest necessity” (hung jury, the judge or a key lawyer drops dead, dismissed jurors reduce the size of the jury below the accepted amount), the case can be retried, but if a mistrial is brought about through prosecutorial misconduct (the DA “lets slip” the fact that the defendant failed a polygraph), the judge can declare a mistrial and dismiss the charged with prejudice, meaning no retrial and possible sanctions against the DA.
The 5th amendment (and the British common laws that inspired it)is a crucial piece of legislation. Some murderers may escape punishment, but the alternative is even less desirable. Consider someone like J. Edgar Hoover who would abuse his position and go after people he didn’t like for years until they finally ended up in jail and/or were financially broken. The potential for abuse is extreme without a solid and respected Bill of Rights in place.
Not in every trial, Zev. In some, yes, there will be concurrent jurisdiction. Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh, for example, were subject to both federal (McVeigh, blowing up a federal building and killing federal employees; Kaczynski, using the U.S. Post to mail letter bombs) and state murder laws. In the majority of crimes, however, the federal government won’t have jurisdiction.
It’s been a long time since I looked at the issue, but IIRC double jeopardy attaches when a jury is empaneled. Therefore, if your case is dismissed before a jury is seated, you should keep your mouth shut. A mistrial is a different story – when a mistrial is called, the trial is over, but the prosecution is not; the government has the option of continuing to prosecute by getting another jury and starting over again. Same if a conviction is overturned on appeal.
I always wondered why the DA’s office didn’t charge him with just 1 of the murders (either one was enough to get rid of him). Then if he was acquitted they could charge him with the other murder and try him all over again.
IANAL but I beleive had Simpson been charged with just one of the murders and been acquitted it would have barred a prosecution for the second since the two murders were part of the same criminal act. I think it’s similar to the idea that by being acquitted of one crime, double jeopardy precludes being charged with any “lesser included offenses” (for example, being acquitted of murder means one can’t be tried for manslaughter for the same death; being acquitted of armed robbery bars trial for weapons charges related to the robbery). Besides, the evidence against him for each death was the same, so in the interests of judicial economy no judge would have allowed the murders to be tried separately. From a political standpoint, the interference of the Brown and Goldman families from the start would have made it impossible for only one of their murders to be charged and not the other.
On the above points of law I could be completely wrong but on the political points I’m quite certain I’m correct. I’m sure an attorney will be along momentarily to correct me on the former and someone else will be along to challenge me on the latter.
I believe the woman in Texas who murdered her 5 kids was charged with only 3 murders for this reason. The prosecution wanted to try her for the other 2 murders had she been acquitted.
Well, the sad news is that everyone is behind the times. The supreme court has ruled that dj is a non issue if they have some good excuse to override. i.e., there is no real such thing as double jeopardy anymore. Some philly gangster, i think, i want to say his name is alleman or something like that. none of the civil rights biz, it was straight out a retrying of the same case.
Let me rephrase that last incoherent jumble. The supreme court ruled that it was perfectly to retry a defendant for the same case even though he had already been exhonerated. i can’t remember the case with certainty, but i think that the defendant was some hood named aleman. the sc said that the first case was fixed so they would throw the constitutional thing out the window.