Can’t charge him again for the killing. Once he’s acquitted, he can never be charged for the killing again on the state level. If he took the stand during the trial and said he didn’t kill the person, he could be charged with perjury. Depending on the jurisdiction, he could go away for a long time for that.
Federally, he’d have to be charged with some federal law. For instance, the cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted of the state charges but were later convicted of federal charges for depriving King of his civil rights by beating him.
No. People plead not guilty all the time and are then convicted. All it means is that you are not claiming you are guilty and are forcing the state to prove you are.
You would have to be really stupid to do this. Laws and their application are pretty complex and filled with twists and turns about which most laymen know practically nothing.
For example, if any part of the crime took place in a different jurisdiction couldn’t the person could be tried on that?
The federal civil rights charges pressed against the Rodney King cops can only be applied if the defendant committed the crime while acting under some kind of government authority.
Of course. I realised the moment I posted that you haven’t taken your oath to tell the truth, the whole truth etc when you are asked to plead. Silly me. Looks like that $99.50 I spent enrolling in “The Jack McCoy Correspondence Law School” was a complete waste of money…
This is correct, but it’s not the whole story. In addition, a plea of “not guilty” is not any kind of statement of fact. It’s merely the way to say “Prove it.”
Sure, but you’re adding facts to the hypo. The question is, once D. is acquitted, can he be tried for the same homicide again? The answer is No, period. Unless he’s an officer or agent of the government, in which case he can also be charged with violating the victim’s civil rights under color of law, which is a separate crime from the murder. Manslaughter is not.
Of course, in many jurisdictions, should this happen, certain members of the police might well hound and harass the acquitted D. unti he flees the country. But once double jeopardy attaches, there is nothing legitimate the state can do to prosecute or punish you for a crime of which you have been acquitted, no matter how clear the later-discovered evidence of your guilt.
BTW, Zero], if the movie you saw was the Judd/Greenwood/Gish snoozefest Double Jeopardy*, then don’t trust it. The version of DJ they discuss in that movie has no relation to actual doctrine of double jeopardy.
Oh I understand that once someone is acquitted of a crime they can’t be tried again for the same crime. I was merely trying to illustrate how stupid it would be to say “Nyah, nyah, can’t get me” after the acquittal. I would suspect it’s rare in a crime like homicide that it is the only serious crime committed during the act.
Weren’t several Southern people who were not police officers convicted of viloating the civil rights of those people they’d lynched after being acquitted of murder in state courts?
Well than does an aquital on one aquit them on all types of murder.
Cause I’ve heard some criminals are found guilty of manslaughter but not guilty of first degree murder
I reckon it’s up to the jury to decide that.
So when they try you on one form of murder are they trying you on all types?
A similar case I found on the crime library, the Governor communted a sentence and allowed for porole without meaning to.
And the district attorny said, “that’s fine, she killed three people and we only tried her for two. The second she gets parole, we arrest her and try her for the third person.”
Now that I can understand, but I find it hard to believe there wouldn’t be some way “Well I did it but you said I was not guilty so, tough luck I’m free.”
I realize they can be sued in a civil court but that would only effect the persons money
[ul]
[li]Protection against a subsequent re-trial after acquittal[/li][li]Protection against a subsequent re-trial after conviction[/li][li]Protection against a subsequent punishment after conviction[/li][/ul]
Both acquittals and convictions operate as a bar against sussequent re-prosecution of all lesser-included offenses of the crime in question.
If a jury finds you not guilty of murder, but guilty of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter, then you cannot be retried of murder.
Maybe.
The prosecution may choose to indict you on both murder and manslaughter, figuring that they get you one the lesser charge if they don’t get the greater. Or they may choose to not give the jury a choice – JUST indict you for murder, and give the jury the choice of setting you free or convicting you of murder. It depends on what their case is like.
So what would happen if, say, a friend of mine was charged with murder and during his trial I admitted on the stand that I had commited the crime. After his acquittal, at my trial, he then confesses that really he did it. Surely they can’t find me guilty and they can’t charge him again.
> So what would happen if, say, a friend of mine was charged with murder and
> during his trial I admitted on the stand that I had commited the crime. After his
> acquittal, at my trial, he then confesses that really he did it. Surely they can’t
> find me guilty and they can’t charge him again.
They can (and they definitely will) charge you with perjury. That assumes that at his trial they believed your testimony that you were the killer. Why should they do that? Is there any evidence that you were able and willing to commit the murder? If there isn’t, the jury won’t believe you and will convict your friend at his trial for murder. (Indeed, if your testimony is simply nonsense, since you couldn’t possibly have committed the murder, I suspect the judge won’t even allow you to testify at your friend’s trial.) On the other hand, if the jury at the first trial believed you and found your friend innocent, why will the jury at the second trial believe your friend when he says that he actually committed the murder? At that point it should be obvious that you’re both liars. The jury at the second trial might convict you out of spite, even though the case for your guilt isn’t very good, because you and your friend have both been screwing with the legal system. And then your friend will get prosecuted for perjury for daring to claim that he was the murderer.
I raised the question of jurisdiction earlier because I remember news reports of a double jeopardy case. Someone was retried in a different jurisdiction for a crime connected with the same overall act after having been acquitted in the original jurisdiction. I well remember thinking at that time that this double jeopardy thing isn’t nearly as cut-and-dried as I had thought.