The defendant was already in jeopardy. The federal and state governments can prosecute a defendant separately for the same conduct without violating the double jeopardy rule. Multiple states also can pursue separate prosecutions. Protection attaches only for prosecutions by the same sovereign.
The dual sovereignty rule means that a defendant can face prosecution by both the state and the federal government, although often one will defer to the other. The federal government may have a right to prosecute a crime that did not cross state boundaries, occur on federal property, or violate a specific federal law, as long as it had some connection to interstate commerce or another area controlled by the federal government.
Jeopardy needs to terminate before the double jeopardy rule can be violated. Jeopardy usually terminates when a case ends, such as when a jury returns a verdict or when a judge enters a judgment of acquittal or dismisses the charges. In some situations, the prosecution may proceed with a retrial after the case ends without violating the double jeopardy rule. This is common when there is a hung jury or when a judge declares a mistrial. If the defense objects to the mistrial, the prosecution will not be able to retry the defendant unless it shows that there is a critical need to proceed with the retrial.
A critical need is not a demanding standard in this context, though, and even the absence of a juror may support a retrial over a defense objection. At other times, the defendant may consent to a mistrial, which gives the prosecution an automatic right to retry the case in most situations. A defendant whose conviction was reversed on appeal may be retried without violating double jeopardy.
However, any charge of which the defendant was found not guilty the first time cannot be retried. Last reviewed October Criminal Law Contents. And section 1 of the old CrPC[4], Section of the amended Criminal Procedure Code, , which states, 1 a person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not to be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been under sub- section 1 of the section or for sub-section 2 there of.
It is to be noted that, the Code of Criminal procedure recognize both the pleas of autrefois acquit as well as autrefois convict. The conditions which should be satisfied for raising either of the plea under the Code are: firstly; that there should be previous conviction or acquittal, secondly; the conviction or acquittal must be by be a court of competent jurisdiction, and thirdly; the subsequent proceeding must be for the same offence.
And the features of fundamental rights have been borrowed from U. Constitution and the concept of Double Jeopardy is also one of them. Principle of Double Jeopardy is incorporated into the U. Under the American and British Constitution the protection against Double Jeopardy is given for the second prosecution for the same offence irrespective of whether an accused was acquitted or convicted in the first trial.
If there is no punishment for the offence as a result of the prosecution clause 2 of the article 20 has no application and an appeal against acquittal, if provided by the procedure is in substance a continuance of the prosecution. And it is to be noted that Article 20 2 of Constitution of India does not apply to a continuing offence. There are some examples of cited cases mentioned below which throw light on the above question: In Venkataraman v.
Hence, the second prosecution did not attract the doctrine of Double Jeopardy or protection guaranteed under Fundamental Right Article 20 2. It is to be noted that Article 20 2 will applicable only where punishment is for the same offence, In Leo Roy v. Superintendent District Jail ,[9] The Court held: if the offences are distinct the rule of Double Jeopardy will not apply. If there was compelling new evidence that they had committed a crime, was it right that they could not be prosecuted?
That question was raised in some very high-profile cases. The original police investigation of this racist killing was seriously flawed, and did not result in criminal charges.
When the family brought a private prosecution of three suspects, all three were acquitted. The Macpherson Report on the case recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be removed to allow a further prosecution if fresh evidence emerged.
The law change helped pave the way for one of those suspects, Gary Dobson, to be convicted of the murder in There have been only a handful of prosecutions brought under the new law. Not all the subsequent double jeopardy cases have involved murder: Wendell Baker was convicted of the rape of a year-old woman in , although his victim had since died. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape.
A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions DPP must personally consent to an investigation being reopened.
The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Finally, there can only be one retrial. If the defendant is acquitted again, they cannot be prosecuted for that crime in future, even if more evidence emerges. However, these stringent safeguards seem to have prevented that happening. And importantly, the new rules allow guilty people to be brought to justice, providing closure to victims or their families.
Slavery did not end with abolition in the 19th century; it still continues today in every country. Take a look at this scenario and decide whether you should prosecute in this interactive quiz What exactly is 'justice'?
Follow our fictional case and see if you can make judgements based on the facts as they are presented to you. Supreme Court ruled that defendants may not always be protected by the double jeopardy clause when trials end without a verdict being reached, as in hung juries and mistrials.
For example, defendants convicted of carrying a kidnapping victim across state lines can be charged, convicted, and punished separately by each state involved and by the federal government. In some cases, the appellate courts —typically the state and U.
Supreme Courts—are required to decide whether the double jeopardy protections apply in cases of multiple punishments. For example, in Ohio prison officials tried but failed to execute convicted murder Romell Broom by lethal injection. In March , a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled that multiple needle sticks did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment because they were not done deliberately in an attempt to torture Broom.
The court further ruled double jeopardy did not apply because no punishment would have been carried out jeopardy ended until Broom had actually been injected with lethal drugs. On December 12, , the U. On May 19, , the Ohio Supreme Court scheduled a new execution to be carried out on June 17, One of the many confusions and misconceptions about double jeopardy is illustrated in the movie Double Jeopardy.
In the plot, the heroine is wrongly convicted and sent to prison for murdering her husband, who had actually faked his own death and was still alive. According to the movie, she is now free to murder her husband in broad daylight, thanks to the double jeopardy clause.
Since the movie was released, several attorneys have pointed out that because the fake murder and the real murder took place at different times and in different places, they were two different crimes, leaving the murderous heroine unprotected by double jeopardy. Actively scan device characteristics for identification.
Use precise geolocation data. Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile. Measure ad performance. Select basic ads.
0コメント