I heard an anecdote of a suspect having just been declared "not guilty" due to insufficient evidence, then he said "thanks, I won't do it again". It was used as an example of how dumb some people can be, and how the criminal just got what he deserved... however, can such a thing really happen? Wouldn't the suspect be protected by double jeopardy? (the story is set in a jurisdiction where double jeopardy exists)
Is the trial officially over as soon as the judge utters the final decision?
Consider the following cases:
- The suspect carelessly and accidentally admits the crime in the courtroom right after being cleared, like in the example above ("thanks, I won't do it again") Can the decision be altered ten seconds after it's been made? If so, is such a careless utterance enough evidence to do so?
- The suspect, having heard about double jeopardy, grins and says openly and voluntarily, right there in the courtroom after the decision: "Haha, in your face! I did murder your wife, but the trial is over so you can't do anything anymore!"
- Same as 2, but it happens weeks or months after the trial, the suspect boasts in front of witnesses how he did it and got away with it. (and to not make it only hearsay, let's assume that the boasting contained actual information which could have been used as a strong evidence)
Would the suspect be protected by double jeopardy? If not, what would be the procedure of doing a retrial or a new trial?