Preview

Double Jeopardy

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
847 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Double Jeopardy
Angela Williams
Professor, Dr. Louis C. Minifield
April 25, 2011
Seminar Criminal Law and Procedure CJ 501

Double Jeopardy

Double Jeopardy is a clause within the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution that prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same criminal offense. If a person murders an individual, he or she can not be convicted twice of murder for the same offense. According the United States Constitution of the America, Amendment V (1791) clearly states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….” Double jeopardy is very complex, but there are certain principles involved that are clear in violation of ones constitutional right not to be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. Although, double jeopardy protects defendants from being prosecuted more than once for the same crime, there are a few exceptions to the rule. In addition, there are five policies put in place that provides specific reasons for the protection against double jeopardy. Those policies include: a) preventing the government from erroneously convicting innocent persons; b) protecting subjects from repetitive emotional, financial, and social ramifications of prosecutions;
c) safeguarding the irrevocability and reliability of criminal proceedings, which could cause negotiation if the government was allowed to randomly ignore outcomes; d) limiting prosecutorial prudence over the accusation process; and e) eliminating judicial diplomacy to enforce collective punishments that



References: Fifth Amendment. (2011). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/206470/Fifth-Amendment. Scheb, John M., & Scheb II, John M. (2011). Criminal Law & Procedure 7th, Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Simmons, Ann M. (2008). Judge Delays Ruling in 1981 Murder Case. The Los Angels Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/16/local/me-briefs16.S1 Drew, Harmon., & Drew Jean T. (2011). True Blue Drew Book. The Practical Handbook for LA Criminal Justice Professionals. Shreveport.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    References: Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E., & Dolatowski, J. J. (2010). Criminal Law Today: An introduction with…

    • 1042 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Cj227 Unit 4 Project

    • 943 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Since John was in custody, what are the procedural steps the police were required to take once John began to incriminate himself? The police have no obligation to stop John Doe from making any statements. “Excited Utterance” made by a defendant before being questioned are admissible as statements given under Miranda advisement. Once the police begin to question John Doe regarding the theft, then they are required to read or provide Mr. Doe with his Miranda Warnings. Miranda rights (Miranda rule, Miranda warning) n. the requirement set by the U. S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Alabama (1966) that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: "the right to remain silent, the right to legal counsel, and the right to be told that anything he/she says can be used in court against" him/her. Further, if the accused person confesses to the authorities, the prosecution must prove to the judge that the defendant was informed of them and knowingly waived those rights, before the confession can be introduced in the defendant's criminal trial. The warnings are known as "Miranda Rights" or just "rights." The Miranda rule supposedly prevents self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Sometimes there is a question of admissibility of answers to questions made by the defendant before he/she was considered a prime suspect, raising a factual issue as to what is a prime suspect and when does a person become such a suspect?…

    • 943 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Ring Vs Arizona Case Study

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages

    This case set forth the precedent that juries, not the judge, will have the ability to exercise their discretion when deciding aggravating factors which could lead to the enforcement of the death…

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The 5th Amendment under the constitution protects offenders against the double jeopardy, it prohibits and offender from being tried for the same offense twice. “the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy protects the accused from being prosecuted more than once for the same crime.” (Wright, 2013, Section 13.1) For example, if there were an acquittal in a case determined by a judge an offender was being charged for murder, and new evidence has been found the offender can’t tried for murder. Yes, a person can be charged with multiple crimes for one act. Say for instance if a person was to rob a bank and some people were killed during the armed robbery, the offender can be charged for each person death and also armed robbery. A lesser…

    • 282 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Most people, when not involved in a criminal case, are under the assumption and believe that our civil rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fifth Amendment, which states an individual cannot be charged twice for the same crime; known as the “double jeopardy” rule. Although this is accurate, what many individuals do not understand is that this will only apply if a defendant has been either convicted or acquitted of a crime. For example, if a defendant is acquitted of a murder, the state is able to charge him with the same crime, and then continually go to trial until a conviction is made. However, if the defendant goes to trial and the trial ends in either a mistrial or hung jury, the state will often charge the defendant again (Balko,…

    • 1194 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Unit VIII, Question 11

    • 444 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Bohm, R. M., & Haley, K. N. (2008). Introduction to criminal justice (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.…

    • 444 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Rogerian and Toulmin

    • 404 Words
    • 2 Pages

    There are multiple cases in which they are pulled off of death row because they were falsely accused…

    • 404 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Herman, 589 F.2d 1191, 1204 (3d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 913 (1979); accord Virgin Islands v. Smith, 615 F.2d 964, 968-69 (3d Cir. 1980) (prosecutor with exclusive jurisdiction over juvenile witness whom defendant wanted to call would have granted use immunity as long as the U.S. Attorney agreed; wrong for U.S. Attorney to withhold agreement); see also People v. Shapiro, 50 N.Y.2d 747, 762, 409 N.E.2d 897, 904, 431 N.Y.S.2d 422, 429 (1980) (error for prosecution to withhold immunity from defense witnesses who asserted fifth amendment only after prosecution threatened to prosecute them for perjury if they testified). Other courts have suggested the same result in dictum or have been reversed for ordering the prosecution to choose between granting use immunity and another sanction. See Earl v. United States, 361 F.2d 531, 534 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (suggesting prosecution cannot grant transactional immunity to its witnesses and refuse the same protection for defense witnesses), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 921 (1967); United States v. De Palma, 476 F. Supp. 775, 781 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (prosecution's broad grant of immunity for its witness and limited grant for defendant's witness resulted in unfair trial, therefore new trial ordered), rev'don othergroundssub nom. United States v. Horwitz, 622 F.2d 1101, 1105-06 (2d Cir. 1980) (conceding it lacked authority to…

    • 4738 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    As assigned, I watched the movie Double Jeopardy, starring Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones. Before watching the movie, I wrote on my notepad, “Would the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment protect Libby if she killed her husband?” After the movie ended, I sat and thought for a while, then scribbled down these words, “Libby was convicted of a crime that didn't happen”. I then read the Fifth Amendment and studied more on the subject of double jeopardy. Libby was tried for the stabbing death of her husband while out sailing. The jury found her guilty of this particular crime and sentenced her to prison. Fast forward 6 years, and Libby is released on parole. She discovers that her husband had faked his own death for fraudulent insurance purposes. She tracks him down, eventually killing him with a fatal gunshot. We are led to believe that she is protected by the double jeopardy clause. Let me remind the reader of the clause. “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”. Was it the same offence that Libby committed?…

    • 308 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    A consequence of Stephen’s murder is that the 800 year old double jeopardy rule as part of the Criminal Justice Act has been abolished and that particular rule stopped a person being tried for the same crime twice. Gary Dobson, Neil Acourt, Luke Knight, Jamie Acourt and David Norris were arrested over the murder but the Prosecution Service failed to prosecute anyone due to lack of evidence. They were acquitted after private prosecution collapsed. In November, the case was re-opened and DNA samples are being taken.…

    • 352 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    While on the other hand if you are found not guilty by the panel of…

    • 1435 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It is fair to be tried in both civil and criminal court for the same alleged actions because they deal with different aspects of the crime. For civil cases, it deals with whether you are liable or not, while in criminal cases it's whether your guilty or not. You can be found not guilty in a criminal case, however, you can still be found liable in civil cases. It is only fair that the victims get awarded damages. Furthermore, it is not against the 5th amendment since the defendant won't be at risk of life or limb in civil cases. Moreover, those found guilty in criminal cases are rarely brought against in civil torts. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with being tried in a criminal and civil court for the same crime.…

    • 487 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This idea of separateness concerning the two is what causes the misconceptions of amendment violations that plague our justice system and the defendants at its mercy. And although two cases have been presented to the United States Supreme Court, Missouri v. Frye, and Lafler v. Cooper and found to be unconstitutional for violating requirements listed in Strickland vs Washington, people still declare they cannot see a clear violation of one’s sixth amendment right in regardless to plea bargains.…

    • 626 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    murder case

    • 1036 Words
    • 5 Pages

    What did the judge do wrong? Which judicial selection option—either appointment, election, or merit—would help to reduce instances of judicial misconduct?…

    • 1036 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Crminial Fair Trial

    • 3542 Words
    • 15 Pages

    The concept of fair trial has been adopted by almost all the countries in their respected field of laws. The purpose behind the establishment of fair trial is to protect the common man from unfair means of any injustice and violation of fundamental rights. The principles of natural justice are the ultimate basis of fair trial system. As far as country like India is concerned, the concept of fair trail is envisaged under the Constitution and other procedural laws.…

    • 3542 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Powerful Essays