http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjeopardy.htm
Nice staff report, Bricker! Covers the ground very well. Straightforward and clear.
I seem to remember a guy in Texas a few years ago who sent a taunting letter to the prosecutor or the victim after thinking he was in the clear, but admitted in the letter to other criminal acts, and got hammered in his second trial.
Seconded. 
Thirded! I particularly liked the clear explanation of dual sovereignty in the US (and presumably other federal states), and the clarification that time and place are elements of a charged crime, something that people tend to be confused about.
I thought there was some sort of provision for re-trial if new evidence was found? Or is that only if someone is found guilty and the evidence points to their innocence? Or maybe I am completely wrong or misremembering something else.
For example, what if I tried to kill someone but they only ended up in a coma. I was tried and found not guilty. After the trial the person wakes up and says, yup, I tried to kill them and I hid the bloody knife in his drawer and here it is. Could I not be re-tried?
Not by the same sovereign jurisdiction for the same crime. As Bricker pointed out in his fine article, you could be retried by the federal government if you violated federal law in the same course of conduct. Additionally, you could conceivably be tried by your own state, another state, and the feds, or all of the above.
Say I stood in Texas and shot a guy in Okalahoma, and he dies an hour later in new Mexico. At common law, the cause of action against me arises in the place where the fatal force inpinges on the body, in this case Oklahoma. However, all three states are free to write statutes in which I would be guilty of murder in all three, and I could be tried by all three, as well as the federal government if I violated federal law when I crossed state lines.
The SCOTUS case on point is Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985). Heath hired two men to kill his wife, who was nine months pregnant; they kidnapped her in Alabama and killed her in Georgia. He pleaded guilty in Georgia in exchange for a life sentence. Alabama susequently indicted him for murder during a kidnapping, and he received the death penalty. The Court ruled that each state had the right to criminalize and exercise jurisdiction over Heath’s actions, and it didn’t violate double jeopardy for each to prosecute him for a single course of conduct.
But to answer your original question, if I’m accquitted of murder in Texas and photographic evidence is found of me committing the murder a week later, Texas can’t reprosecute me for murder. There was a CourtTV case on with essentially those facts a while ago, but damned if I can remember who or where.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but if the confession in question references brand new evidence that was not known to the procecutors and was not therefore brought up at the original trial, can they not investigate the new evidence and retry the case based solely on the newly discovered evidence?
Has anyone seen the movie Double Jeopardy?
The woman was convicted of killing her husband (he faked his own death and tried to pin it on her). I can’t remember why, but she was paroled after serving some time in prison.
If after she was let out of jail and this time she really did kill him, could she be tried again?
No. Essentially the whole point of the double jeopardy rule is that the prosecution can’t keep trying you until they get it right. Subject to the exceptions in the Staff Report, an acquittal is forever.
Not by the same sovereign. See pravnik’s post.
**Bricker ** has:
As noted in earlier responses, no. The philosophy behind this is that the State, with all the powers and resources it is able to bring to bear for investigating the crime, should damn well be able to get it right the first time.
Great report, Bricker. Well done!
Note that they can re-try to OVERTURN a conviction, if new evidence comes to light, but they can’t re-try to undo a “not guilty” verdict.
Answer: yes, becaue the first time she was tried for killing him on February 4, 1986 (I’m making that up) and the next time was for killing him on September17, 2006, after she served 20 years in jail. They’re different crimes because they were committed on different dates, in a different place.
You might try actually reading the report that has spawned the OP. It answered this quite nicely. :smack:
Great report, Bricker. Thanks for succinctly explaining the basis for the second Rodney King trial. Local media never clearly explained the difference between state and federal sovereignty.
The most notorious example of being untouchable after acquittal has to be the Emmett Till murder. The murders were acquitted, then later sold their confession to Look magazine. Not OJ-style “If we had done it” shenanigans, but a flat-out admission of guilt. I doubt that could happen tooday. Son-of-Sam laws would prevent them from profiting from selling their story, and a federal civil rights case would likely follow an acquittal.
Damn your right! I don’t know how I missed that. :smack:
On the other hand, we the citizens can try almost endlessly to appeal criminal convictions/rulings and get another try at defending ourselves. That has backfired, however, on numerous occasions. I can recall back in Wisconsin (where I met the (in)famous Ed Gein, another story all together) someone appealing a sentencing, “winning”, and then getting resentenced to a substantially harsher penalty. :smack: I think they appealed again, but the mere fact that things got worse wasn’t a legit grounds for another shot…
There is (or was recently) a proposal in this state to allow a second prosecution on the same facts and offense if significant new evidence came to light (mainly prompted by the new possibilities of DNA evidence). IIRC “significant” would have to be agreed by both sides before it could go ahead. Can anyone see a problem in that?
Actually, the rule is that a defendant who has successfully attacked his first conviction cannot receive a harsher sentence after a new trial merely for retaliatory or vindictive reasons on the part of the prosecution. Mpreover, a defendant must be free of any fear of retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge. To guard against this, the reasons for imposition after retrial of a more severe sentence must affirmatively appear in the record and must be based on objective information concerning the defendant’s identifiable conduct after the original sentencing proceeding.
Surely, though, this is only in cases where the defendant was convicted? Aside of the constitutionality of it, why on Earth would someone found not guilty agree to go ahead with another trial!
Askance is in Australia; I don’t know if they have the same strict double-jeopardy rules as we do here.
Don’t worry – they don’t ask your permission the first time around either. 