74

There is precedent for the idea that double jeopardy need not apply when the initial trial was a sham because the judge and/or jury had been bribed. See Aleman v. Judges of Cook County Circuit Court, 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998). This case was very similar to your hypothetical: Aleman was initially acquitted of a murder, but years later it came to light ...


42

No No, it would not. When the Judge and/or the jury have been bribed or corruptly influenced, united-states courts have held that the person on trial was never really in jeopardy at all, so the double jeopardy rule does not apply. Such a case is described in this Chicago Tribune story from 1994, where the trial judge has been bribed. The Wikipedia article ...


27

Yes The normal remedy for not receiving a fair trial or due process is the declaration of a mistrial. A mistrial legally never happened so it is up to the prosecution to decide if they want a retrial. Unless the appellant can demonstrate that no reasonable jury would have convicted on the evidence (which seems unlikely verging on impossible), the appeal will ...


26

Yes, the Ohio case of neurosurgeon Sam Sheppard seems to make clear a retrial was permitted under similar circumstances. The appeal eventually made it to the U.S. Supreme Court as Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), which reversed and remanded the conviction. The state of Ohio retried Sheppard; however, in the second trial, the state failed to ...


18

In england-and-wales double jeopardy would not apply as murder is a qualifying offence for a retrial follow an acquittal as per Part 10 and Schedule 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Part 10, s.75: Cases that may be retried (1) This Part applies where a person has been acquitted of a qualifying offence in proceedings— (a) on indictment in England and Wales,...


13

united-states For a particular sovereign in the United States, the criminal law test for this is from Blockburger v. United States (emphasis mine) 12 Each of the offenses created requires proof of a different element. The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be ...


13

Why do other countries, like America, not allow this? It is the way that U.S. courts have interpreted the constitutional amendment requirement and reflects a policy judgment that letting someone go free now and then is better than frequently forcing someone to be tried more than once. That value judgment flowed from concerns about and fear and skepticism of ...


11

No, this is actual case law from the case of Harry Aleman vs. Judges of the Criminal Division, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, et al., The Seventh Circut Court of the U.S. Federal Court system ruled that Double Jeopardy did not attach because Aleman's initial trial was a bench trial before a bribed Judge. Because Aleman was never "in jeopardy ...


9

(assuming United States law here, though I'd be surprised if it were significantly different in other jurisdictions with such restrictions) Your friend is incorrect: that would be a new offense, for which Person A could be prosecuted anew. If your friend's logic were correct, once a person is convicted of robbing a store, they'd be free to rob that store ...


8

As far as the US is concerned, the provision of the US constitution ends the discussion, unless there is some latent and unresolved unclarity what the 5th Amendment says. Bear in mind that the amendment refers to "jeopardy" and not just "punishment" or "conviction" – even the possibility of conviction. To overcome the US ...


7

There's a saying hard cases make bad law: Hard cases make bad law is an adage or legal maxim. The phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. In other words, a general law is better drafted for the average circumstance as this will be more common. Maybe you can find a case where ...


6

new-zealand This has been codified, and case law has provided some nuances. A great overview of it is given by Jeremy Finn and Don Mathias in "Criminal Procedure in New Zealand" which is helping me to write this answer. Can the prosecutor charge me with some, run the case to its conclusion and then, win or lose, charge me with others. Rinse and ...


5

These charges aren't the same offense. They are three different offenses, all of which arise from the same conduct. Imagine throwing a grenade in a building because you saw a police officer about to discover evidence connecting you to a crime. I think most people would agree that there's no reason you could not be charged with murder, arson, and tampering ...


5

No, a later trial is not allowed A prosecutor can, and often will charge multiple related crimes, and all will be addressed at the same trial. But once a person has been acquitted on a given set of events, the same jurisdiction cannot re-try the same person on what is often called a lesser included offense. Nor on a greater offense implied by the same events....


3

australia Possibly The leading authority on this is in Commonwealth criminal law, in Benbrika (Ruling No 3) [2011] VSC 342, the Victorian Supreme Court (State Supreme Courts in Australia have Commonwealth jurisdiction as well as Federal courts) ordered a permanent stay on the prosecution. In 2009 Benbrika and three others who had been convicted in 2008 on ...


3

Double jeopardy does not apply to different offences [N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb... The Supreme Court has held that it means what it says - murder and rape are different offences and so the double jeopardy clause is not triggered. However, if an offence requires that the same elements (...


2

Your question seems to be whether the prohibition against double jeopardy precludes a second trial when a conviction from the first is set aside. The overwhelming case law is "no". Since the verdict is set aside, the defendant is considered to not have been in jeopardy. A prosecution failing because the trier of facts (jury or, in a bench trial, ...


2

It's a "greater offense" -- sometimes also called a "greater included offense." But you're generally going to be mistaken about whether the defendant can be re-charged after an acquittal on the lesser-included offense. In the United States, at least, the Double Jeopardy Clause would prohibit that prosecutorial strategy. One could still ...


2

While @Colin Losey has a lengthy and basically correct answer, one get reach a conclusion much more quickly. Under U.S. law, in a criminal case, a jury verdict of acquittal cannot be appealed or overruled for any reason other than improper outside interference with the jurors (e.g. bribery or extortion directed at jurors to get them to acquit). This is true ...


2

Usually yes, with caveats. As David Siegel's answer says, constitutionally, the federal government can prosecute anyone for a crime which has already been prosecuted at the state level. But that's only the beginning of the story. Start with the US Attorney's manual. This manual is not, in and of itself, a law. However: A. Statement of Policy: This policy ...


2

That's basically correct. The Double Jeopardy clause prevents the federal and state governments from trying you again for a crime that you've already been acquitted of, no matter what new evidence turns up. Even if you confessed to the crime, you could still not be tried. The relevant text of the Fifth Amendment reads: No person shall ... be subject for the ...


1

I think the basis for this claim is the 1999 Double Jeopardy film. But it doesn't work that way! Let's assume the horrible crime is µing somebody. Insert to your liking any crime for µ... or even jaywalking. Person A was (falsely) charged to have µed Person B on AA/BB/YYYY and convicted. Now they somehow really µed B on CC/DD/ZZZZ after the conviction. That'...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible