Except that there’s still the problem with collateral estoppel.
Here’s an example that will hopefully clarify the issue.
Let’s say that a state has a law against driving over the speed limit (maximum penalty - ninety days). And a law against driving while intoxicated (six months). And a law against driving over the speed limit while intoxicated (one year).
Now let’s say you were arrested driving over the limit, both in speed and blood-alcohol level. And you were charged with driving while intoxicated. But your lawyer is really good and you’re found not guilty.
The state can’t turn around and try you again on the charge of driving over the speed limit while intoxicated. Because part of convicting you of that crime would require them to prove you were intoxicated and you’ve already been found innocent of that charge. So they cannot make that claim in court.
But they can try you for driving over the speed limit. There’s nothing in that charge that says anything about whether you were drunk or sober at the time of the incident. So the fact that you were found not guilty of being intoxicated says nothing about what speed you were driving at.
Quick question for US Law Dopers, Double Jeopardy does not prevent re prosecutions where the charge is of a crime within the same transaction; for example theft and rape, can you be tried for simple theft (say of a womans necklace, earrings and jewelry) which the complainant says that you took, even if originally you were tried (and acquitted) only of rape?
In most commonwealth countries that would probably not be triable.
Sorry, Little Nemo; however, that’s not the way I, admittedly not a lawyer, have heard it. The state is trying all the “lesser included offenses” when it’s trying someone for an offense. They cannot pick and choose for a number of “at bats” with the same defendant for the same incident.
That’s the point. Driving over the speed limit is not an offense that’s included with driving while intoxicated. You can do both together but you can also do either one separately without the other. That’s what makes it possible to have a second trial.
One thing to also consider is the statute of limitations on any of the ‘other crimes’ besides murder. While murder has no statute of limitations, the vast majority of crimes in the US have a statute of limitations of 5 years or less, and so couldn’t be prosecuted if the guy served 5 years or so of his sentence before being released/refound to have committed the murder. I am not sure if conspiracy to commit murder is lumped in with murder as a particularly heinous crime, though, as IANAL.
Basic flaw in your argument: It is possible to rob someone more than once. It is NOT possible to murder someone more than once.
There’s also the issue of right to a speedy trial. The prosecution cannot sit on a charge waiting to see if you are convicted on A before charging you with B. Nor can they sit there until the day before the expiration of the statute of limitations before charging, just to make your life difficult. Failure to file charges and have a trial means that witnesses die or forget, evidence degrades or disappears, etc. This deprives you of your right to a fair trial. They have a duty to file charges in a timely manner; most charges filed a long time after the act are due to new evidence coming to light that made the difference in charging or not charging.
Yup it is. In both cases there was a charge/indictment which alleged that the individual murdered “X” at such and such time and a Trier of Fact ascertained that the accused did in fact do so.
What would happen is that the first of the murder conviction would be set aside or vacated by whatever the appropriate procedure but that does not annul the argument that it is possible to murder someone twice.
Kill them on the other hand… is what you are looking for.
A charge says that “crime A happened at time B with the following circumstances/victims”. The stupid Ashley Judd movie totally misconstrued the reality of the law; but are we surprised? This is Hollywood, where Robert Redford on a horse can outrun a police car, where a talented balance artist like Tom Cruise can fire a machine gun while balancing on the front wheel of a motorcycle after applying the brakes for a reverse wheelie… Suspension of reality is nothing new. The amazing thing is that nobody said “but…hold on…” while they spent $30 million or more on the project.