Reading the thread in GD about Charles Manson http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14947594#post14947594 , Damien Echols’ name came up. I was curious…even with the deal/release of the West Memphis 3, if some incontrovertible proof came up as to their guilt, I dunno, a video of them killing the kids that they took and showed them laughing and desecrating the bodies, could prosecutors prosecute them, or would their agreements have put it into the double jeopardy scenario?
They weren’t found innocent - they were given 10-year suspended sentences when they were released. One of the conditions for their release was pleading guilty (Alford plea, to be more exact). Double jeopardy wouldn’t apply.
Okay, I’m a little confused now. If they pled guilty and were given a sentence, even a suspended once - why doesn’t double jeopardy apply? It’s not something that applies only to an acquittal, as I understand it. Wouldn’t they have been convicted of the crime before being released, and therefore, double jeopardy would prevent them from being tried on the new evidence in the hopes of a harsher sentence.
Sorry, you might be correct that they can’t be retried (IANAL). I meant there wasn’t a need for them to be retried, because they could simply be jailed again based on the original conviction. I don’t know all the detail of their suspended sentence, but I would presume there is a probationary period or some other way to allow them to be rejailed in circumstances like the OP suggests.