Talk:Double jeopardy

Japan

In comparison to the entries for other countries the entry for Japan appear a bit out of place. Is it appropriate for the section for Japan to suddenly digress into a blurb about Japanese values, when the entries for other countries appear to stick strictly to the legal aspects of the law in those countries?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.108.191.139 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 August 2007.

Capitalisation?

Is double jeopardy used as a proper noun? I would have presumed as a legal term (if so used rather than under a more formal name) it would require double capitalisation (no pun intended!) Does anyone know? If it is a formal term used as a proper noun, then the page should be moved to [[Double Jeopardy]]. I would also presume that the TV show would use capitals in both words as TV shows almost invariably do. ÉÍREman 06:33 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

That depends on if you want to have this article be based on a single official definition of double jeopardy or about the general concept. Every nation that uses this term will use it as a proper noun but only in reference to their definition of it. So "Double Jeopardy in the United States" would be a correct page title but the general article talking about the term would only be a common noun. --mav

Canada

Should discuss principle in Canadian law. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Carroll Case

The Australian case cited in relation to this principle (R V Carroll) deserves its own article (at least, it does from the perspective of a parochial Aussie ex-law student :P). Until someone with more legal knowledge than I have is able to write one, I'll link the case-name to an article on Carroll himself covering the case/s involved. BigHaz 11:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I wrote an essay on the case last year, I'll write the article when I have it in front of me, I can't remember all the specifics. I edited what you added, I felt some of it was surplus information Psychobabble

Exceptions to Double Jeopardy

Found an external link to United States v. Felix but Findlaw only lists the appeals court case for Illinois v. Aleman. Possibly, the Supreme Court declined.

User:Raul654: If you have a link please update.

Instances of "Haha, I really DID kill her!"

Is there any record of someone being acquitted of murder or another serious crime, only to later declare his or her guilt with full immunity due to the double jeopardy protections? 153.104.16.114 17:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in such a case, it would be of no use, as the person has already been fully acquitted for the crime, admitting it later is of no advantage to him. However, if the person has had a reduced penalty for possible guilt then he will serve a reduced sentence and even of he declares his guilt later, he cannt be acquitted again. Now, in answer to your question, I have no idea.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Brighton trunk murder uk - Tony Mancini was acquitted in 1934 of murder - he was accused of killing his prostitute girlfriend and stuffing her body into a trunk where it was later found in his flat. Mancini's defence was that he had found her already dead, due to his criminal record he was afraid to report his finding to the police. Astonishingly the jury found him not guilty. In 1975, just before his death, he confessed the killing to journalist Stephen Knight. He wasn't tried for perjury because at that time it was a convention that lies a defendant told in his defence were exempt! User:badtypist

Another example: Adam and Brad go to rob a house. Adam kills the owner of the house, Chuck. On the charge of murder, Adam is somehow found not guilty. If a month later at Brads murder trial Adam takes the stand and says, "Brad could'nt have killed Chuck. I killed Chuck!" Brad would most likely be found not guilty, and Adam would be protected under double jeopardy. Both scott-free of the charge of murder!! The charge of perjury on Adam from his trial, however, i havent got a clue on. HANDS HORSLEY! User:jeloij

There has been an exmaple recently (Sept '06) of someone admitting a murder under the Doubel Jeopardy Law, however they did not get immunity.

Source:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11092006/325/man-admits-murder-first-double-jeopardy-case.html

A man cleared of killing his former girlfriend 15 years ago made British legal history on Monday when he admitted her murder in the first case to go to court again following the reform of the double jeopardy law.

Billy Dunlop, 43, was formally acquitted in 1991 of murdering Julie Hogg after two juries failed to reach a verdict. However he admitted murder at Old Bailey on Monday (Advertisement) before he was due to face another trial.

His case was the first to be affected since the 2003 reform of the so-called double jeopardy rule -- an 800-year-old law which stipulated that a person once acquitted could not be tried again for the same offence.

Hogg, 22, disappeared from her home in November 1989 and her body was found by her mother, Ann Ming, behind a bath panel at her daughter's house in Billingham, northeast England, 80 days after she went missing.

In 2000, Dunlop, a former boyfriend of his victim, was jailed for six years after admitting two charges of perjury arising out of evidence he gave at the murder trials.

Last November, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled Dunlop's should be the first case to be referred for a new trial because there was "new and compelling evidence".

A tearful Ming, who had staged a long campaign to have the double jeopardy law changed, said she was "just relieved".

She said she hoped her determination to bring her daughter's killer to justice would leave a "lasting legacy" to help other families in the future.

"It's been a long and difficult journey to see him standing in the dock at court today. He's done everything he could to do to avoid justice," she told reporters.

"But his lying and scheming have eventually been all in vain."

Cleveland Police said Dunlop was an "evil and extremely dangerous man" who had got away with murder for 17 years.

MAKING HISTORY

"History has been made today but more importantly justice finally achieved for Mr and Mrs Ming," said Detective Superintendent Dave Duffy.

"Together they have fought and won a campaign to change the double jeopardy law that has been a cornerstone of British justice for 800 years."

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the reform of the law had been a "significant and welcome change".

"As this verdict shows, if acquitted of a serious crime, offenders will no longer be able to escape responsibility for their act should new and compelling evidence come to light," he said in a statement.

"At last there is justice for Julie. And for her family, especially Ann, who fought so hard for this day, even coming to parliament to tell me why we had to change the law. She was right."

Actually, I seem to recall that one cannot be tried twice with the same evidence. A later public admission of guilt has often prompted a new trial (such cases are classic "stupid criminal" material). Circeus 03:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Greg Domaszewicz

On 15 June 1997 a 20-month old baby, named Jaidyn Leskie, dissappeared from his home in Moe, Victoria, Australia. His body was found months later. Greg Domaszewicz, who was baby-sitting him that night, was acquitted of his murder. In the popular mind he remains the prime suspect and a second inquest continues. There has been a call for double jeopardy to be abandoned, to allow him to be re-tried, if the second Inquest reveals new evidence. This demontrates how fragile the defence might be. Avalon 11:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

---

WQhat happens if a mass of new evidence comes to hand? what if some/all of that evidence was deliberately withheld from the iriginal trial by one or both parties?

That's the whole point of double jeopardy. If there was no new evidence, there'd be no point in a new trial. If you allow a re-trial where there is new evidence, you've abolished double jeopardy.

As for the parties hiding evidence, in a criminal trial the parties are the Crown (people/state in a republic) and the defendant. The defendant has no obligation to provide evidence. If the Crown withold evidence tending to convict - why should the defendant suffer? The Crown has all the resources of the State behind it, if it cannot muster the evidence to convict & the defendant is acquitted, then, IMO the subject who is accused ought to be free of repeated attempts to find him guilty.

Avalon 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

um....... if any evidence was withheld in the original trial and this is discovered later, it would make it a mistrial, and in the retrial the withheld evidence along with any other evidence that may have popped up since the end of the first trial is fair game, no protection by double jeopardy there. HANDS HORSLEY User:Jeloij

I have no idea what HANDS HORSLEY is, but that information is wrong. The situation described is classic double jeopardy and the plea autrefois acquit would be available. Psychobabble 07:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________

Who is Fooling Who America ?

Double Jeopardy happens all the time. OJ Simpson is still being tried for the same crimes and can't get a fair trial anywhere.

I'm not saying he didn't do it.

But clearly he is being set up and has just been arrested for theft.

Mr. Simpson can't seem to get it that he is being set up.

Hows that old saying go if we can't get him in the wash we'll get him in the rinse.

Double Jeopardy in Mr Simpson case is the great American Farce being played out in the media for entertainment.

76.217.58.143 22:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Silas G Sconiers 76.217.58.143 22:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC) This is my opinion and should not be construed to be legal standards but it happens . Ok so what is your point should we add something saying if it is a famous case and they get off but people are split over it we should say something like "OJ Simpson is still being tried for the same crimes and can't get a fair trial anywhere" I'm sure he feels that being out how ever bad is not like jail. This is about the law as it is written the ideal at one time a group of people (Slaves,Indians,Women,Chinese, ALL NON-WHITES) had no rights because they were not real "people" they were "Savages"... and used skin color, gender and other differences to exclude people unlike them from the rights owed to them by the constitution. O.J. may have not had a fair trial for his crimes in Vegas and the court of appeals may over turn it on appeal if there are good arguments for him not getting a fair trial. In the end this has nothing to do with editing the page and as much as I would love if every page had a forum they do not at this time and this is not what the talk page is for---- Nate Riley 12:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC). N8Riley

NBReiley said in the edit summary for the last prior edit, "Who is Fooling Who America ?: Talk Page is for talking about editing the page not debates about the subject! That why there needs to be a debate page!".

There are plenty of debate pages about this issue in the blogosphere. WP:SOAP says, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." . -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The abolition of the double jeopardy rule was largely a result of concern over two cases. The first was the failure to prosecute anyone over the death of Stephen Lawrence. The alleged killers were barred from re-trial after the collapse of the Lawrence family's private prosecution. The second was the collapse of the trial of Colin Stagg. He was accused of the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon common in 1993, but the judge ruled almost all of the prosecution evidence in-admissable; calling it "the worst case of entrapment I have seen". This decision caused huge disquiet amongst the police, tabloid newspapers and the tabloid minded (ie politicians). All proceeded to discuss the case as if Stagg had been convicted. As of 2006 it is clear that no new evidence will ever come forward in the Lawrence case. In 2004 DNA evidence appears to prove Stagg's innocence beyond any doubt. I believe the current Damilola Taylor murder case is the first time it has been used - if it is the fact is obviously subject to a news blackout. If the boys are found not guilty in a second trial it will raise great questions about the whole process.User:badtypist

This section also needs some amending to include the other nations of the United Kingdom. If it's a law that just affects England then fair enough. If it's a law in place in the other parts of the U.K. then they need some mention too. Snowbound 04:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

This is article is fine if you are looking for information about England historically, and the whole UK as of today. However, it is very mixed up historically. For example, there is little point in talking about the "Norman Conquest" in anything other than an English Context. If that conquest is cited as a source, then when did Wales come under the same set of laws (presumably at Union in 1536, but it's quite possible that it was earlier or later)? What was the situation in Scotland (which has always had a separate legal system) and Northern Ireland? I came to this article trying to find out the situation in Scotland in 1547 and I am none the wiser having read it. I would suggest that this article concentrates on the current situation in each of the 4 countries of the UK, with a section on "England and Wales" and one on "Scotland and Northern Ireland" under the UK heading. I also propose that it moves the historical discussion to a separate article "Double Jeopardy in the United Kingdom" to deal with the historical development of Double Jeopardy law in all 4 UK countries. 90.242.83.70 (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Purpose

So, what was the purpose of Double jeopardy? What was it attempting to prevent?

I just wrote a blog post on that question :) Psychobabble 02:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, I was just wondering...

'hypothetically'

Someone was convicted of killing another person and they served their time. (they were innocent)

When they were released after serving their time they then found out that the peorson they were convicted of killing was actually still alive, could they then kill that person and not be convicted of it as they have already served their time?

=========

This has been bandied about for years if not decades. HYPOTHETICALLY you couldn't be tried again, but how many prosecutors would NOT move to have the original charges vacated? And how many defenders? Can you imagine the civil suit????

"My oh my...I did all that time for a crime I never committed!! Let's vacate the conviction and get restitution" at which point oh yes you can be tried for the true killing after.

This is like the one about "your defense client confesses so what do you do? do you continue to represent them or do you break privlage and turn them in?"

Big media blow-up within the last few months out of Chicago over two attorneys who found themselves in this exact situation. An innocent man did 26 years. ((Alton Logan and Andrew Wilson, Chicago, IL 2008) I think there's a wiki page on them.

It's only hypothetical until it actually happens, then it's a precedent.

--A Pre-law student in KY, USA 71.28.232.179 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

USA

This article is exceedingly weak on almost all counts, but especially in re the US. There is no mention, for instance, of Witte v US, which prompted Justice Stevens, in US v Watts, to write that, " I continue to disagree with the conclusion reached by the Court in Witte, that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit convicting and sentencing an individual for conduct that has been decisive in determining the individual's offense level for a previous conviction." How can an article an issue of such juridical importance and constitutional moment have zero footnotes and one lone external link? The standard Wikipedian retort is, "Then you should improve the article yourself," but Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't ask me to improve its articles, nor should I have to. Nor should students and other persons doing research get half-fast information until a proper article is written. Yes, I know that the Wikipedians play this cute game wherein they disingenuously exclaim that nobody should rely on Wikipedia for accurate information. Nicmart 14:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It may help to note that Encyclopedia Britannica has paid staff who write about such things and wikipedians don't get paid... plus they tend to edit articles they are interested in. Since you seem interested in this subject, I suggest that "you should improve the article yourself", as you so nicely observed. :) --hydkat 09:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The basic problem is that for many advanced fields like law, professors and graduate students don't get official recognition for contributing to Wikipedia, which means that most law-trained Wikipedia contributors are practicing attorneys (like myself) and law students, who have to squeeze Wikipedia edits into their already heavy workload. With my leisure time severely constrained by my career at the moment, I have higher priority articles to worry about like Lawyer and State Bar of California. --Coolcaesar 08:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Scotland and Northern Ireland

SInce the article only puts england and wales, does this mean that in n ireland and scotland double jeopardy is allowed? 75.166.84.204 07:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't be tried for the same crime twice in Scotland AFAIK. bruce89 (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mychal Bell to be retried in juvenile court

Since Mychal Bell's (of Jena-6 fame) conviction in adult court was vacated by a judge, how is it that he now faces retrial in juvenile court for the same crime? I do not see any references to this exception in the main article. Is he placed in double jeopardy, or why not? (Bell was being freed as this is written...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetbird (talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the article:

Exceptions (Duoble Jeopardy)

..."Also a retrial after a conviction has been reversed on appeal does not violate double jeopardy because the judgment in the first trial has been invalidated. In both of these cases however the previous trials do not entirely vanish."

Jeopardy only attaches when a final judgment is rendered and STANDS. Bell's adult conviction was overturned which means it did not stand (up). And from the sound of it it was tossed because he was tried in the wrong court (adult when it should have been juvenile) so you have questions of sovereign rule application too.

-a prelaw student in KY, USA 71.28.232.179 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "double jeopardy"

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this an American term, and in that case, should not equivalent law in other countries have their own articles under their own respective terms, which should be linked to from here? Or at least should it not be made clear that these laws are the equivalent of what is known in the U.S. as double jeopardy? As the article reads now, "double jeopardy" is the term by which the concept is known world-wide.86.44.23.66 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Double jeopardy is NOT a procedural defense! Double jeopardy is the (inadmissible) SITUATION of being put again on trial for the same criminal offence (after having been acquitted or convicted). Since being put in this situation is not permitted by the US Constitution (and similarly in most other countries, with variations), a procedural defense is naturally applicable and effective in its prevention.

The opening lines of this important article should be rewritten to reflect the original meaning of double jeopardy, rather than easygoing lawyers' parlance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.232.127.42 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

july2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.122.136 (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My question is: is it considered double jeopardy if a person is being tried for two seperate crimes that are substantial the same crime? For example: conspiracy to cultivate cannabis and cultivating cannabis. How can you conspire to do something and do it at the same time? The definition of conspire is to plan an illegal act, the crime at hand actually happened. Or this example:#1-To aquire or obtain, or attempt to aquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge.#2-Or uttering a forged instrument; whoever utters as true a false, forged or altered record, deed, instument or other writing knowing the same to be false, altered, forged or counterfeited, with intent to injure or defraud any person.
 Any input could be helpful for my argumentive term paper, and to a discovery that I am trying to finish. thank you
 www.daviddaugherty77@yahoo.com

I am a student, too and I also need some information about my debate class. Unfortunately, I'm only 15 and I'm not actually getting hold of this concept. If you have finished with your research, then, could you tell me about the answers to your questions? I mean, I want to get the answers for the question you've asked, if you know it. It will be a lot of help. But I won't be that lucky if you saw this after Saturday, which is the date of my debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.150.1.67 (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Under the explanation of double jeopardy i put a definition from Encyclopedia Britannica, While doing research on double jeopardy i found this to be a helpful and great overview of double jeopardy. Jakeclark7183 (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Australia

I can't find any legislation about the new exceptions to the double jeopardy rule in Australian States cited in the article, just mere drafts. Someone knows if these draft have ever been actually put into law and can source that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.126.217 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions

I've made a cosmetic edit to this section. In doing so, I notice that the second of the two exceptions discussed mentions judgment notwithstanding the verdict. looking at the WP article on that, I see that it relies of [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule50.htm of the Federal rules for civil procedure. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that double jeopardy applies in criminal matters, not in civil matters. Perhaps someone who knows more about this than I could clarify this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

GOCE

Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 02:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)