Carl the criminal robs a store as his first crime. Somehow, he is found not guilty of this (the 12 jurors do not unanimously agree on his guilt). After walking free, he immediately goes back to the same store, and is caught again as a suspect from committing the same exact crime.
Double Jeopardy says you can't simply be tried over the same exact instance of a crime. Still, my 2 main questions are
- Even though Carl was found "not guilty" the first time, can that first case be used as evidence against him for the current second case?
- If Carl is found guilty for this second case, can the sentence be extended to include consequences from the first case (which it is probably obvious now he should've been found guilty for).
Or does Double Jeopardy protect Carl from having that first case used against him in any way?
This is just one simple example. In a more extreme case, consider a murder. Carl was found "not guilty" of murdering Mary, but was found trying to murder the rest of Mary's family the next day.
P.S.: the impetus for this question is inspired by Yakuza Judgement. In it, a character refuses to defend themselves from a crime they're accused of, because they don't want to admit to another crime they committed.