Can double jeopardy (re-doing a trial) be allowed due to other trials / new information?

Question

Alice goes after Randy for raping her in a trial. Alice has a bad lawyer though, and completely loses, and Randy gets off. After any appeals, etc., Randy still gets off, so Alice is out of luck.

However, years later, Barbara goes after Randy for rape, and wins. And Clara goes after Randy for rape, and wins. Same with Dolly and Emma and Fiona and Gertrude, etc..

At this point, is Alice allowed to redo her trial against Randy (since there's good reason to believe she was right)?

On a similar note, if, after the trial, an irrefutable video of Randy raping Alice came out (and a bunch of other irrefutable evidence), is Alice not allowed to redo the trial?

Answer 1

Criminal: double jeopardy applies

A second criminal indictment against Randy for the same alleged act is precluded by double jeopardy.

Civil: functus officio and res judicata apply, with a narrow opportunity for fresh evidence on appeal

But you say "Alice goes after Randy," and talk about Alice redoing "her trial," making me think this is a civil action you are talking about. Double jeopardy has no application. However, res judicata would apply to preclude bringing the same action against Randy in a second lawsuit. As long as the original judge has entered their order, they are functus officio and cannot reopen the trial.

In some jurisdictions, Alice could attempt to bring fresh evidence on appeal that was not available during the trial. Different jurisdictions have different rules about what would be allowed to be introduced as fresh evidence on appeal. Some jurisdictions simply do not allow it. Others have a complex process by which the appeal court would be informed that the trial court has become aware of new evidence that it says would have changed its outcome. However, if the appeal deadlines have passed, these paths is also closed.

Answer 2

We have to differentiate between criminal law and civil law. It is very well possible for the same events to be subject to a criminal trial and then to a civil trial, and those two trials coming to different conclusions.

A prominent example is the murder case of OJ Simpson. Simpson was found "not guilty" of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in a criminal trial, but later "liable" for their wrongful death in a civil case. The personal results for Simpson was no prison time, but having to pay a lot of money to the next of kin of the deceased as reparation.

There are two possible explanations why this happened. One is that one court made mistakes which the other court did not. The other is that the burden of proof in criminal trials is a lot higher than in civil trials, so it is conceivable that the evidence was not enough for a conviction in criminal court but adequate to hold someone liable in civil court.

Answer 3

Under the principle of double jeopardy, once a defendant is acquitted of a crime, they cannot be retried for the same offense, regardless of new evidence or successful convictions in other related cases. This protection is firmly established in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In the scenario where Alice lost her case against Randy, and later, other women successfully win their cases against him for the same crime, Alice would not be able to retry Randy. Even if irrefutable evidence, such as a video, surfaced showing Randy committing the crime against Alice, she would still be barred from retrying him. Double jeopardy ensures that once someone has been acquitted, they cannot face prosecution again for the same offense, regardless of the quality or amount of new evidence.

The only exceptions to this rule would involve errors during the trial process, such as procedural issues or misconduct, but new evidence alone cannot override an acquittal. Additionally, Alice could pursue civil action, which operates outside of criminal law, but in criminal court, the door is closed due to double jeopardy.