Double jeopardy only applies for the same facts and the same charges. If there are new facts and new evidence, then a retrial can be sought.
So in this case:
1. not only would she have a retrial for charges of murdering Tatum, because new facts appeared (that she was sane)
2. but she would also be charged with a new crime, namely of colluding in insider trading.
"Double jeopardy only applies for the same facts and the same charges. If there are new facts and new evidence, then a retrial can be sought."
True only if the defendant had been found guilty. If the defendant is acquitted, it's over. If tomorrow OJ Simpson confessed to the murders of his wife and Ron Goldman, he can't be re-tried (criminally, that is. He was sued in civil court after the acquittal).
it's bullshit if you ask me. I mean in light of new incriminating evidence, you'd think she would be sentenced to jail. There has to be some exception to this law.
shareThe minute you make an exception you will have prosecutors attempt to widen it until almost any crime can be retried until the prosecution gets the result it wants. I'm in favor of vigorous prosecution for crimes, but there have to be rules and rules with exceptions can quickly become rules in name only.
shareIt should also be considered that the standard for justice in the US (and other countries I am sure) is that it is better to let a hundred guilty people go free than imprison one innocent person. We don't do nearly as good a job of that as we should, but it is the standard to reach for.
sharebut it's absurd to let it slide. A crime has been done and heads must roll.
shareSo, how many times should someone be tried if the prosecutor doesn't convict the first time? Twice? Three times? a hundred? Does the accused spend the rest of their life having to defend themselves?
Our jurisprudence is base on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You might KNOW someone is guilty (how do you KNOW that?), but its another thing to prove it.
I'd much rather live in a system where you have to prove guilt, and you get just one bite at the apple, than one where everything is decided before the trial begins and everything is just for show. And what you are proposing is a big step to just that.
As many times as necessary, if there is enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt to put them behind bars. I think it's lazy of legislators to set a criminal free in light of new evidence after having been acquitted.
shareok. If guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, why wasn't the accused convicted the first time? Who decides they are guilty (other than a jury) and need to be tried again and again until, damn it!, they are found guilty. That seems to me to cross into retribution rather than justice.
Double jeopardy is a constitutional protection for a reason. Because the state could, and did, continue to try the same person for the same crime. It has to be absolute. (and it actually isn't. Penalties not considered "punishment" are not covered under double jeopardy) Allowing exceptions because some increasingly hypothetical authority just knows the accused is guilty descends rapidly to continual prosecution against political enemies, persons with poor reputations, or just someone the prosecution just doesn't like.
"If guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, why wasn't the accused convicted the first time?"
New evidence emerged
"Allowing exceptions because some increasingly hypothetical authority just knows the accused is guilty descends rapidly to continual prosecution against political enemies, persons with poor reputations, or just someone the prosecution just doesn't like."
Courts are fallible, and rulers might be biased and prosecutes might be politically motivated to harrass an individual of whom they are suspicious but surely we can make an exception for serious cases, such as murder, where there is compelling evidence of guilt subsequent to acquittal? Why can't the prosecution appeal when the defence can ?
Because it would be double jeopardy. I obviously can't convince you of why it is important. If you feel that strongly get it changed. I will warn you, it would require a constitutional amendment. You would have to get 2/3rds of both the House and Senate to vote for it and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify it: or you could attempt to call a constitutional convention. Since no one has ever been able to do the latter, that seems like an unlikely strategy.
shareI'm not a US citizen nor am I a US resident, I'm just debating.
shareI understand. Double jeopardy is a large point of US constitutional law. It was put into the Constitution by the original writers precisely because people were put on trial multiple times for the same crime because juries didn't render the guilty verdict the government/prosecutors wanted. It is nearly absolute because setting up exceptions weakens the proscription of double jeopardy and cold easily lead to it being a principal in name only and people defending themselves numerous times; thus breaking them financially and emotionally.
I understand your concept that new evidence should allow a new trial; but it comes under the same issues. A prosecutor can always claim new evidence, and the defense would have to defend the move to allow the trial.
This forces the prosecution to be very sure of its case. A prosecutor must balance the strength of the evidence he has and the statute of limitations for the crime being considered. Crimes have varying statute of limitations; generally murder does not have such a limitation. Murder prosecutions have proceeded decades after the crime. This is due to the seriousness of the crime. The stature of limitations is also an important limitation since memories can fade, evidence can be lost, and chain of custody, and reliability of evidence all affect the balancing act.
Nah. That coukdn't be.
share