Double jeopardy
Double jeopardy is a legal principle rooted in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime after an acquittal. This civil liberty ensures that once a person is found not guilty, they cannot be prosecuted again for that specific offense, even if new evidence comes to light. The Fourteenth Amendment extends this protection to state prosecutions, maintaining the rights of individuals charged with crimes at both federal and state levels. However, double jeopardy applies exclusively to criminal cases and does not prevent civil lawsuits based on the same actions, as seen in the case of O.J. Simpson, who faced a civil suit despite his criminal acquittal.
There are notable exceptions to this rule; for instance, if a conviction is overturned on appeal, the individual may be retried. Additionally, the doctrine of dual sovereignty allows for prosecution in multiple jurisdictions if a crime violates laws in more than one area, such as state and federal laws. Another complex aspect is collateral estoppel, which can prevent the re-litigation of factual issues that have already been resolved in favor of the defendant in prior trials. Understanding double jeopardy is essential for grasping the nuances of legal protections against repeated prosecutions for the same crime.
On this Page
Double jeopardy
SIGNIFICANCE: The rule against double jeopardy is a civil liberty specified in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which applies this right to persons prosecuted for federal crimes. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause applies double jeopardy to the states, thereby protecting people charged with state crimes. In particular, a person acquitted of a crime cannot be prosecuted and tried again for that same crime, even if the prosecution finds more evidence implying guilt.
Double jeopardy applies only to crimes and not to civil cases, such as private lawsuits. For example, in a famous murder case, O. J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering two people. In a wrongful-death civil suit, however, a court ruled that Simpson was responsible for the wrongful deaths of the two persons. Therefore, despite Simpson’s previous acquittal in a criminal case, he was still sued and found liable in a civil case based on the same facts.
There are other exceptions to double jeopardy. If a person is convicted of a crime and appeals the case to a higher court, the appellate court may overturn the conviction. In such a case, a person may be tried again for the same crime. Also, a person may perform a criminal act that violates the laws of more than one jurisdiction. For example, if a person violates the laws of two or more states or federal law, that person may be prosecuted by more than one state or the federal government. A person who steals a car in Indiana and then drives it to Michigan can be prosecuted by Indiana, Michigan, and the federal government. This is covered by the doctrine of dual sovereignty.
A more complex legal doctrine that may affect a defendant’s use of and a court’s interpretation of double jeopardy is collateral estoppel. Rarely used in criminal law, collateral estoppel prohibits a factual or legal issue from being used against a criminal defendant if that issue was resolved in his favor in a previous trial within the same jurisdiction. For example, a state prosecutes a person for robbing three people at the same time, choosing to prosecute the person in three separate cases for the robbery of each victim. A defendant acquitted for the robbery of the first victim may claim that acquittal in the first case means that it is impermissible to be prosecuted for the other two robberies because the facts and issues are the same. By using collateral estoppel, the defendant uses a type of double jeopardy defense. Defendants do, however, have the burden of proving which facts or issues were decided in their favor at earlier trials and how relevant they are to their new cases.
Bibliography
Blocher, Joseph. The Death Penalty and the Fifth Amendment. No. 2015-52. Durham: Duke U School of Law, 2015. Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Ser. PDF file.
Garcia, Alfredo. The Fifth Amendment: A Comprehensive Approach. Westport: Greenwood, 2002. Print.
Holmes, Burnham. The Fifth Amendment. Englewood Cliffs: Silver Burdett, 1991. Print.
Levy, Leonard W. Origins of the Fifth Amendment. 1968. Reprint. New York: Macmillan, 1986. Print.
Nockleby, John T., et al. The Journalist's Guide to American Law. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Whiteman Runs Him, Heather. "Argument in Double-Jeopardy Case Shines Spotlight on Prosecutorial Issued Faced by Native Tribes." SCOTUSblog, 24 Feb. 2022, https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/argument-in-double-jeopardy-case-shines-spotlight-on-prosecutorial-issues-faced-by-native-tribes/. Accessed 25 June 2024.
Wilson, Steven Harmon, ed. The US Justice System: Law and Constitution in Early America. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2012. Print.