When a defendant is found to be not guilty by a jury in criminal trial, he is acquitted for good, meaning: he would now be free to admit that he actually did commit the crime and he can even brag about the fact that he got away. He can’t be tried again for the same crime (double jeopardy).
I wonder under what circumstances could such a person be charged and tried again. I’m assuming that this would the case when it is discovered that the defendant (successfully) bribed or threatened members of the jury (think mafia/organized crime figures)? Are there examples for this in legal history?
(I’m not thinking about multiple jurisdictions, for instance being found not guilty by a jury in a state, and later being tried again essentially for the same crime in federal court).
Different crimes, different trial, different jeopardy.
There have been cases where, if a particular crime could be charged under both Federal and State statues, that the State will have a go, and if the jury returns a not guilty, the Feds turn around and charge with the appropriate federal crime.
No. The rule only says you can’t be tried for the same crime. These are multiple crimes – one count of murder for each person killed. So if you’re acquitted of killing victim A, you still can be convicted of killing victim B.
So let’s assume there was a bomb explosion that killed 100 victims, the forensic evidence which leads to the defendant is controversial. So the way to approach this for the prosecution is to charge the accused only with the murder of victim no. 1, if he is acquitted, let’s charge him with murdering victim no. 2, a new trial, again an acquittal. Then no. 3 etc. This can’t be right.
Part of it is that prosecutors don’t have an infinite amount of money and time to try cases. Plus, just one murder isn’t going to send someone away for life. So they usually try a large number of those murders at once, and if the defendent isn’t put away by the second trial, they give up.
Back when O.J. wrote “if I DID IT,” I seem to recall there was some speculation that he could be charged with perjury if it turned out he lied about not committing the murders. Does anyone know if there’s anything to that?
“once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision … preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.”
Meaning, if you were accquitted of planting a bomb at such and such a place on such and such a date that killed such and such a person, and you are acquitted, you can’t be retried for planting the same bomb on the same date, but to kill a different person.
The multiple trials for multiple victims angle usually happens when the victims didn’t all die in the same way at the same time. If I shoot my buddy with a shotgun, and then when the cops come to arrest me I shoot one of the cops, I’ve committed two murders in two separate incidents. I could be prosecuted for the first murder, with the second murder held in reserve. It is easily logically possible that I’m not guilty of the first murder, but guilty of the second murder.
But if I plant a bomb that kills both my buddy and a cop in the same incident, and I was found not guilty of killing my buddy, then it would be double jeopardy to prosecute me for killing the cop.
My understanding is that it depends on how many acts caused the crimes.
Separately prosecuting a number of deaths caused by a single act like detonating a bomb probably would trigger double jeopardy. But a person could be separately prosecuted for causing a number if he went on a shooting spree. Each shooting was a distinct act. You didn’t light one fuse and kill fifty people; you had to pull the trigger for each person you killed.
Nope, you just get to keep your trap shut. If you take the stand in your own defense, you waive your Fifth Amendment rights with respect to that trial. At least that’s my understanding (IANAL).
An exception to the collateral estoppel rule is multiple sovereigns. For example, when Terry Nichols conspired with Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Oklahoma City federal building, the former was convicted of eight counts of involuntary manslaughter for the federal crime of killing federal agents who worked in the building. He was then tried by Oklahoma for 160 counts of murder for the remaining victims, and was convicted.
ETA: Timothy McVeigh was never tried by Oklahoma since his federal trial resulted in a death sentence.
If a defendant is found not guilty, can a DA file a lesser charge. Like if they were found not guilty for murder can they be charged with manslaughter for the same act?
Unless there’s significant new evidence that would undoubtedly be considered double jeopardy and not be an option. The DA can make a plea offer of a lesser charge *during the course of the trial *if they feel it’s in the people’s best interests.
An important thing to remember is the Western legal concept of ‘presumed innocence’. It’s not just a slogan. It means that even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a mobster did bribe a judge or jury and was found not guilty because of this, you could immediately charge him with jury tampering etc. (a felony) and, with a mistrial declared, possibly start working on retrying him for the original crimes. But there is no legal method of ‘reversing’ a not guilty verdict to guilty regardless of any evidence of tampering or injustice. Even if you can prove that the ‘not guilty’ verdict wasn’t legally binding, because of presumed innocence the defendant is still, well, legally innocent.