I was given to thinking about the Double Jeopardy clause in our Constitution. I generally think that it is a good idea that the state or the feds have only chance to convict you for a crime. I think it is a good idea that a “Not Guilty” verdict is final and non-appealable.
However, I recently began wondering if an exception should be made. Specifically, the exception would be in a case where the defendant later comes forth and admits that s/he, in fact, committed the crime that they were acquitted of.
For example, IMHO, it would be a good thing to retry OJ Simpson if he now came forth and shouted from the rooftops that he committed the murders he was charged with.
Now, I know that very few, if any, acquitted defendants would come forth and admit their crimes, even with the DJ protection in place. But you never know…
What brought this matter into sharper focus is the recently concluded Lemrick Nelson trial. For those who are unfamiliar, Lemrick Nelson was charged with murdering Yankel Rosenbaum during a riot in Crown Heights, Brooklyn in August 1991. The riot was touched off when a car in the motorcade of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson struck two children, Gavin and Angelo Cato. Gavin Cato died. For the next three days there was general rioting in the streets of Crown Heights. On the first night of the riots, Yankel Rosenbaum was killed by a group of youths who shouted “Get the Jew.” Rosenbaum identified Nelson as the person who stabbed him before he died.
At the state trial, Nelson’s defense was that he was framed and was not at the scene of the crime. He was acquitted of the charge by a jury in October 1992. He was later charged under Federal Civil Rights statutes for violating Rosenbaum’s civil rights. His defense at that trial was the same as in the first trial. He was convicted and sent to prison. The conviction was later overturned on a procedural error by the judge. At the third trial, Nelson changed his strategy. Now, he claims, he did stab Rosenbaum that night, but did so because he was drunk on beer, not because Rosenbaum was Jewish. He was again convicted of violating Rosenbaum’s civil rights, but was acquitted of being responsible for Rosenbaum’s death.
I’m not aware if he actually testified at either his state trial or the first federal trial. As a side question, if he did, could he be charged with perjury for denying his role in the murder which he later admitted?
In any event, this seems to me to be the perfect case for a DJ exception to be made. The defendant’s defense was that he did not stab Rosenbaum, but later, in open court, he admitted to stabbing Rosenbaum. It seems to me that when a defendant is so brazen as to openly admit that he cheated the system and was in fact guilty of the crime of which he was acquitted, a DJ exception could be warranted.
Of course, I know that this is all hypothetical. I know that such an exception would never pass as an ammendment to the Constitution. However, I’m curious to hear other people’s takes on the matter.
Zev Steinhardt