This movie is correct, double jeopardy only applies when the Jury acquits the defendant. In this case the judge dismissed the trial due lack of evidence, it was a mistrial. Him pulling the plug of his wife's life support was evidence of his intent to kill her and they had grounds for a retrial.
The movie should have explained this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy
He was originally tried for attempted murder. He was later tried with murder after her death. Two different charges so double jeopardy doesnt apply at all. Goslin's character mentioned that.
sharedouble jeapordy does prevent being tried for the same crime again even if on a different charge, otherwise prosecutors could try for a lesser or greater charge after an acquittal and keep trying until all possible charges are exhausted
as for the judge dismissing, I believe it depends on whether the case is dismissed with or without prejudice
~~~
"I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me..."
This movie is correct, double jeopardy only applies when the Jury acquits the defendant.Not quite true. In the first trial, the charges were not dismissed, the defendant moved for and was granted a judgement of acquittal from the court. That is the same as being found innocent by a jury.
The judgement of acquittal by the judge has the same legal consequences as being acquitted by a jury.
Crawford cannot be tried for the same facts again. The death of his wife later does not make it a new case with new facts.
The legal ramifications of the cited case in the movie were not understood by the writer(s).
People v. Bivens (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 653 [282 Cal.Rptr. 438] is about being tried again when you were already convicted of a crime.
"that as at the time of conviction of assault there could have been no conviction of the homicide[,] the prosecution of the homicide is not barred by the conviction of the assault.'[...]
The keyword is CONVICTION here.
But because the judge in the movie acquitted the defendant, double jeopardy applies. In the real world a judge would declare the trial a mistrial. But of course then the movie would not work at all.
But well, judges sometimes do strange things and in this movie the acquittal makes it double jeopardy and Crawford is safe.
Still good court room drama and good entertainment with some above average acting. I enjoyed it beside the "flawed happy end".
He was acquitted. The judge granted Crawford's motion for acquittal. According to another IMDb member, Double Jeopardy applies in this case in that someone acquitted of a crime cannot be retried for the same "set of facts", which, if he's correct, means that the bullet, the gun, and his voluntary confession to Willy are irrelevant since they all speak to the set of facts which put the wife in a coma. This would in turn mean that he couldn't be tried for murder since it couldn't be shown that he was breaking any law by pulling the plug.
share