Jump to content

Talk:Double jeopardy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Canada

Should discuss principle in Canadian law. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 12 December 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 October 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 — Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 29 October 2004

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpookyMulder (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 December 2005‎

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.121.220 (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2006‎
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)

Purpose

So, what was the purpose of Double jeopardy? What was it attempting to prevent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uuandem (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 September 2006‎

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

Armin Meiwes

He is the cannibal that was re-tried in Germany after the law was changed about cannibalism, changing his 8 1/2 year manslaughter conviction to a life imprisonment for murder. This was a double jeopardy case that should be made light of. Neoyamaneko (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2008 (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 — Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 15 February 2006

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)

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)

Question 2

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)

GOCE


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

Comment 2

under separate sovereigns, I felt it important to put an example of what is not considered a separate sovereign. I for one would have thought that tribal courts would be considered separate sovereigns because of their different laws and jurisdiction. Jakeclark7183 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

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 — Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 15 February 2006
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.121.220 (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2006‎


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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.3.206 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2006‎

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)

"Dunlop pleaded guilty to murdering Julie Hogg and raping her dead body repeatedly," Actually I'm not sure if legally anyone can rape a corpse. I think the crime would be interfering with a corpse.

Edward Carson (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.122.136 (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2009

The crime must be the same crime. For example, if person X killed persons Y and Z, and was then tried for the murder of Y and found not guilty, they could not be tried again for the murder of Y, because that would be a violation of the double jeopardy rule. But they could then be tried for the manslaughter of Y (a lesser offence); conspiracy to murder Y; or indeed the murder of Z. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment

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)

Jakeclark7183 is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable up to date source? Wouldn't it be better to reference a more primary source? Another issue is that people have to pay to access Britannica, so people can't follow up on that reference if they want to dig deeper (unless they have a paid subscription). --Fincle (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the term, etc.

This edit caught my eye. I'm unable to access the full article, but a google search for "origin of the term double jeopardy" turns up an article titled A History of Double Jeopardy in Jstor. On the first page, it says that the Latin phrase "nemo bis debit pro un delicto" (English: "twice the debt for one offense") was probably a part of Roman law. From a look at the first page of the article, it looks like it might be useful as a supporting source for other things as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so it is older than the Bill of Rights. I suspected as much; thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Ne bis in idem is the Latin Law equivalent. It is already linked to in the article. Maybe it should however be mentioned in the first paragraphs, to broaden the perspective of that to more non-anglo-saxon angles.--83.134.107.52 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

interwiki german WP

the equivalent of this article in the german WP is filed under the latin "ne bis in idem" name, maybe someone can add an interwiki-link? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_bis_in_idem Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.93.20 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the German article de:Ne bis in idem is already linked to the English article Ne bis in idem. You can't have a two-to-one link. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sam Sheppard

There's a link to Sam Sheppard in the "See also" section; does anybody know why? It looks (from the article page) like he was found guilty, but granted a re-trial on appeal; I thought double jeopardy only applied if the accused was acquitted, that they couldn't then be re-tried (put in jeopardy again) for that same offense. Any offers? Swanny18 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2012 (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)


"According to the University of New South Wales, the federal government is pushing hard for ‘reform’ of double jeopardy throughout Australia.[5]"

The reference here to the 'University of NSW' is strange (Usually you need to be more specific). Following the linked reference it goes to the UNSW Council for Civil Liberties which is a student organization within the university. Although I don't doubt the veracity of the information provided by this source, it is possible not an authoritative enough source for this article. Links to a government site or official organization might be more apt. Can someone suggest a better source? --Fincle (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Faux Double Jeopardy Reforms

One very relevant aspect of Australia’s double jeopardy “reforms” that should be mentioned is that they are, in fact, all bogus. Since 2006 with New South Wales, there have been an accumulated 14 years in which all the states (except WA) have legislated for repeat trials. Add to that the fact that, with the exception of Queensland, they have changed the laws retrospectively, then there is about a total of 90 years of questionable acquittals that public prosecutors can revisit. And covering that time just how many convictions have there been for suspects previously acquitted? Precisely zero. Unfortunately this information cannot be added to the article due to sourcing problems. You can’t prove a negative. You can’t prove that something hasn’t happened. If reform was actually working then newspapers would obviously be giving space to incidences where those who initially got away with it due to cunning lawyers were eventually brought to justice. However unfortunately it is not a story to say that no one today has been finally convicted after an acquittal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Carson (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

AE or BE spelling

This topic pertains to the laws of the United States, several Commonwealth countries, and other jurisdictions. The overall topic has no strong tie to any one country. Therefore, the form of English used should be the one that was first employed (see WP:ENGVAR). In this instance, that was American English (see this version, which uses AE spelling, such as "defense", except in verbatim quotation).

By this edit earlier this year, editor Ohconfucius added a "Use British English" tag at the top. The ES did not explain the tag, and I see nothing on the talk page about it. The tag appears to be directly contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.

If the article is to be entirely in one form of English, it should be AE. In this instance, however, because there is discussion of several legal systems, it might be best to allow diversity. The purpose of the all-AE-or-all-BE rule is to spare the reader the jarring shifts from one form to another. As an American lawyer, however, I find it quite jarring to read a discussion of American law that uses BE spelling. Presumably, speakers of British English would feel the same when reading the sections about Commonwealth countries.

Therefore, I suggest the following:

(1) Sections that are about the law of a particular country should use the form of English that is most common in that country.
(2) The introductory section and other sections of general applicability should use AE.

This isn't strictly in keeping with WP:ENGVAR, but I think this solution serves the purpose of that guideline better than would putting the entire article in AE. JamesMLane t c 02:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrying the defendant after an appellate reversal other than for sufficiency

Under "United States"/"Prosecution after acquittal," it is stated: "[This principle does not] prevent the government from retrying the defendant after an appellate reversal other than for sufficiency." The citation is to Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662 (1896), which I do not think quite supports this proposition. From that page: "The court rejected John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell's double jeopardy arguments, holding that they could be retried after their prior convictions were reversed on appeal." Their original convictions were reversed for sufficiency, contradicting the exception laid out in "other than for sufficiency." Millard Fillmore Ball's conviction after the second indictment was reversed, but he was acquitted originally. 69.137.156.7 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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 27 April 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 — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 27 April 2003 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.102.6 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2005 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

Cross-national issues?

Does the concept of double jeopardy apply across national boundaries? An example being, if an American on French soil murdered the American ambassador to France, could they be tried in both a French and US court? Another example (that I guess probably has come up somewhere..) would be money laundering charges (although isn't that generally civil), or terrorism charges. Note: IANAL.. 23:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimw338 (talk • contribs)

I have the same question. Trabelsi has been convicted for planning an attack on the NATO headquarters in Brussels, after his 12 year sentence, he has been extradicted to the U.S. to stand trial for conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals outside the United States. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Jury bribery and double jeopardy

The article states "There may also be an exception for judicial bribery,[60] but not jury bribery.". It was always my understanding that any sort of bribery that predetermines the outcome of the case in favor of the defendant has been ruled by several U.S. courts to mean that the defendant was never in jeopardy in the first and thus double jeopardy does not apple in such a case. I am not aware of any courts having stated that jury bribery does not allow the state to retry the defendant. I'm not sure if any court has ever ruled on a case involving jury bribery as to the double jeopardy question. What I understand as to the current state of things is that courts view any bribery of a judge or jury that guarantees the outcome of a case in favor the defendant as removing jeopardy and thus allowing retrial. If I have that wrong I welcome a legal expert to correct me, otherwise I think the section on exceptions to double jeopardy in the U.S. needs to be corrected. --50.247.125.19 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hypothetical double jeopardy if crime committed after original conviction

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.85.226 (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2007‎

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)

The second trial would clearly be for a separate crime, with completely different circumstances...just like the same victim could easily be robbed twice. The defense lawyer would certainly be able to move to vacate the original conviction, but that would not impact the prosecution for the actual murder later on. 67.52.192.26 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2014 (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)
That is why Wikipedia, although very good, can never be great...the experiment has pretty much already reached the limits of its model...even Wikipedia's original founder and visionary has jumped the ship.... 67.52.192.26 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (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)
That used to be true, but a new law in Scotland allows retrial under certain circumstances, such as the accused making an explicit admission of guilt.... 67.52.192.26 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Double jeopardy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

English variant spelling

The article seems to be currently written in British English, although this hasn't always been the case. There was a comment about this in the archives which has some sensible points. What do people think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Double jeopardy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Double_jeopardy/Archive_1&oldid=1136676352"