Home  ›  If New Evidence Is Found Can Someone Be Tried Again

If New Evidence Is Found Can Someone Be Tried Again

Written By Wednesday, May 18, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Legal defense

Double jeopardy is a procedural defense force (primarily in common constabulary jurisdictions) that prevents an accused person from existence tried once again on the same (or similar) charges post-obit an amortization and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or guess misconduct in the same jurisdiction.[ane] A variation in common police force countries is the peremptory plea, which may accept the specific forms of autrefois acquit ('previously acquitted') or autrefois convict ('previously convicted'). These doctrines appear to take originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem ('not twice confronting the same').[two]

Availability every bit a legal defence [edit]

If a double-jeopardy result is raised, evidence will exist placed before the court, which will typically rule every bit a preliminary affair whether the plea is substantiated; if information technology is, the projected trial volition be prevented from proceeding. In some countries sure exemptions are permitted. In Scotland a new trial can be initiated if, for example, the acquitted has made a credible admission of guilt. Part of English police for over 800 years, it was partially abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland past the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where, following demand for change, serious offences may be re-tried following an acquittal if new and compelling evidence is found and for the trial to be in the public's interest.[3] In some countries, including Canada, United mexican states, and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right.[4] [5] In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.[a]

In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit ('previously acquitted') or autrefois captive ('previously bedevilled'), with the aforementioned effect.[7] [b]

Double jeopardy is not a principle of international law. It does not apply between different countries, unless having been contractually agreed on between those countries every bit, for example, in the European Union (Art. 54 Schengen Convention), and in various extradition treaties between two countries.

International Covenant on Ceremonious and Political Rights [edit]

The 72 signatories and 166 parties to the International Covenant on Ceremonious and Political Rights recognise, nether Article 14 (vii): "No one shall be liable to exist tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the constabulary and penal procedure of each country." However, it does non use to prosecutions by two different sovereigns (unless the relevant extradition treaty expresses a prohibition).

European Convention on Human Rights [edit]

All members of the Council of Europe (which includes virtually all European countries and every member of the European Union) have adopted the European Convention on Human Rights.[9] The optional Protocol No. 7 to the convention, Article 4, protects against double jeopardy: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal process of that State."[x]

All EU states ratified this optional protocol except for Germany, the United Kingdom, and kingdom of the netherlands.[11] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.

Fellow member states may, still, implement legislation which allows reopening of a example if new evidence is plant or if there was a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings:[x]

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not foreclose the reopening of the case in accordance with the constabulary and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is testify of new or newly discovered facts, or if in that location has been a cardinal defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the effect of the case.

In many European countries, the prosecution may appeal an acquittal to a higher court.[ citation needed ] This is not regarded as double jeopardy, but as a continuation of the same case. The European Convention on Human Rights permits this by using the phrase "finally acquitted or convicted" as the trigger for prohibiting subsequent prosecution.

Past land [edit]

Australia [edit]

In contrast to other common police nations, Australian double jeopardy law has been held to further prevent the prosecution for perjury following a previous acquittal where a finding of perjury would controvert the acquittal. This was confirmed in the case of R five Carroll, where the police found new evidence assuredly disproving Carroll's sworn alibi 2 decades after he had been acquitted of murder charges in the death of Ipswich kid Deidre Kennedy, and successfully prosecuted him for perjury. Public outcry following the overturn of his conviction (for perjury) past the Loftier Court has led to widespread calls for reform of the law along the lines of the England and Wales legislation.

During a Council of Australian Governments (COAG) coming together of 2007, model legislation to rework double jeopardy laws was drafted,[12] but at that place was no formal agreement for each state to introduce it. All states have at present chosen to introduce legislation that mirrors COAG'due south recommendations on "fresh and compelling" bear witness.

In New South Wales, retrials of serious cases with a minimum sentence of 20 years or more are at present possible fifty-fifty if the original trial preceded the 2006 reform.[13] On 17 October 2006, the New Southward Wales Parliament passed legislation abolishing the rule confronting double jeopardy in cases where:

  • an acquittal of a "life sentence offence" (murder, violent gang rape, large commercial supply or production of illegal drugs) is debunked past "fresh and compelling" evidence of guilt;
  • an amortization of a "fifteen years or more judgement offence" was tainted (by perjury, bribery, or perversion of the course of justice).

On 30 July 2008, South Commonwealth of australia too introduced legislation to chip parts of its double jeopardy law, legalising retrials for serious offences with "fresh and compelling" evidence, or if the amortization was tainted.[fourteen]

In Western Australia, amendments introduced on viii September 2011 allow retrial if "new and compelling" testify is plant. It applies to serious offences where the penalty was life imprisonment or imprisonment for xiv years or more. Acquittal because of tainting (witness intimidation, jury tampering, or perjury) also permits retrial.[15] [16]

In Tasmania, on 19 August 2008, amendments were introduced to let retrial in serious cases if at that place is "fresh and compelling" evidence.[17]

In Victoria on 21 December 2011, legislation was passed allowing new trials where there is "fresh and compelling DNA bear witness, where the person acquitted subsequently admits to the crime, or where it becomes articulate that fundamental witnesses have given fake evidence".[12] However, retrial applications could but exist made for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, arson causing death, serious drug offences and aggravated forms of rape and armed robbery.[18]

In Queensland on xviii October 2007, the double jeopardy laws were modified to allow a retrial where fresh and compelling evidence becomes available after an acquittal for murder or a "tainted acquittal" for a law-breaking carrying a 25-twelvemonth or more sentence. A "tainted acquittal" requires a conviction for an administration of justice offence, such as perjury, that led to the original acquittal. Dissimilar reforms in the Britain, New Southward Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, S Commonwealth of australia and Western Australia, this law does not have a retrospective effect, which is unpopular with some advocates of the reform.[nineteen]

Canada [edit]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section xi(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. However, the prohibition just applies after an accused person has been "finally" convicted or acquitted. Canadian police force allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal. If the amortization is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to be double jeopardy since the verdict of the first trial is annulled. In rare circumstances, a court of appeal might besides substitute an amortization for a conviction. That is non considered double jeopardy since the entreatment and the subsequent confidence are so deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an entreatment from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Courtroom of Canada requires the Crown to show that an error in law was fabricated during the trial and that it contributed to the verdict. It has been argued that this test is unfairly benign to the prosecution. For instance, in his volume My Life in Criminal offense and Other Academic Adventures, Martin Friedland contends that the rule should be changed so that a retrial is granted only when the error is shown to be responsible for the verdict, not just a gene.

A notable example is Guy Paul Morin, who was wrongfully bedevilled in his 2nd trial subsequently the acquittal in his kickoff trial was vacated by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the Guy Turcotte case, for instance, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned Turcotte's non criminally responsible verdict and ordered a 2nd trial afterwards information technology found that the gauge committed an error in the first trial while instructions were given to the jury. Turcotte was later on convicted of second-degree murder in the second trial.

French republic [edit]

In one case all appeals accept been wearied on a case, the judgement is final and the action of the prosecution is closed (lawmaking of penal procedure, art. six), except if the terminal ruling was forged.[20] Prosecution for a crime already judged is impossible even if incriminating evidence has been plant. However, a person who has been convicted may asking some other trial on the grounds of new exculpating evidence through a procedure known as révision.[21].

French law allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal.

Federal republic of germany [edit]

The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) for the Federal Democracy of Germany protects confronting double jeopardy if a last verdict is pronounced. A verdict is final if nobody appeals confronting it.

Nobody shall be punished multiple times for the same law-breaking on the basis of full general criminal law.

—Art. 103 (3) GG[22] [23]

However, each trial party tin can appeal against a verdict in the outset example. The prosecution or the defendants tin can appeal against a judgement if they disagree with information technology. In this case, the trial starts again in the second case, the court of appeal (Berufungsgericht), which reconsiders the facts and reasons and delivers a final sentence.

If ane of the parties disagrees with the 2d example's judgement, they tin can entreatment it only for formal judicial reasons. The case will be checked in the third example (Revisionsgericht), whether all laws are applied correctly.

The dominion applies to the whole "historical issue, which is usually considered a single historical course of actions the separation of which would seem unnatural". This is true even if new facts occur that signal other crimes.

The Penal Procedural Code (Strafprozessordnung) permits a retrial (Wiederaufnahmeverfahren), if it is in favour of the defendant or if the following events had happened:

A retrial not in favour of the defendant is permissible subsequently a final judgement,

  1. if a certificate that was considered authentic during the trial was really not authentic or forged,
  2. if a witness or authorised expert wilfully or negligently made a wrong deposition or wilfully gave a wrong unproblematic testimony,
  3. if a professional or lay gauge, who fabricated the decision, had committed a crime by violating his or her duties as a judge in the case
  4. if an acquitted defendant makes a credible confession in court or out of courtroom.

    —§ 362 StPO

In the case of an order of summary punishment, which tin exist issued by the court without a trial for bottom misdemeanours, there is a further exception:

A retrial not in favour of the accused is also permissible if the accused has been convicted in a final order of summary punishment and new facts or prove take been brought frontward, which establish grounds for a confidence of a felony by themselves or in combination with earlier show.

—§ 373a StPO

In Germany, a felony is defined by § 12 (1) StGB every bit a crime that has a minimum of one year of imprisonment.

India [edit]

A partial protection confronting double jeopardy is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article twenty (two) of the Constitution of India, which states "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more once".[24] This provision enshrines the concept of autrefois convict, that no one convicted of an offence can be tried or punished a second time. Yet, it does not extend to autrefois behave, and so if a person is acquitted of a crime he tin be retried. In India, protection against autrefois acquit is a statutory right, not a central one. Such protection is provided by provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than past the Constitution.[25]

Japan [edit]

The Constitution of Japan, which came into result on May 3, 1947, states in Article 39 that

No person shall exist held criminally liable for an act which was lawful at the time it was committed, or of which he has been acquitted, nor shall he be placed in double jeopardy.

However, in 1950, one accused was found guilty in the Commune Court for crimes related to the election law and was sentenced to paying a fine. The prosecutor wanted a stronger sentence and appealed to the Loftier Court. As a upshot, the defendant was sentenced to iii months of imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the judgement was excessive when compared with precedents and that he had been placed in double jeopardy, which was in violation of Article 39. On September 27, 1950, all xv judges of the Supreme Court made the Grand Demote Decision to dominion against the defendant and declared that a criminal proceeding in the District Court, High Courtroom and Supreme Court is all one case and that there is no double jeopardy. In other words, if the prosecutor appeals confronting a sentence of non guilty or a guilty decision that they remember does not impose a severe enough sentence, the defendant will non be placed in double jeopardy.

On October 10, 2003, the Supreme Courtroom made a landmark decision in the expanse of double jeopardy. The case involved Article 235 of the Penal Lawmaking, which addresses "simple larceny", and Article 2 of the Police force for Prevention and Disposition of Robbery, Theft, etc., which addresses "habitual larceny". The Court ruled that in the event that in that location are two trials for separate cases of simple larceny, it will not be considered double jeopardy, even if the prosecutor could take charged both of them equally a single crime of habitual larceny. The accused in this case had committed crimes of trespassing and simple larceny on 22 split up occasions. The defense counsel argued that the crimes were really i offence of habitual larceny and that charging them equally dissever counts was double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled that it was within the prosecutor's discretion equally to whether to charge the accused with one count of habitual larceny or to charge them with multiple counts of trespassing and simple larceny. In either case, it is non considered double jeopardy.[26] [27] [28]

Kingdom of the netherlands [edit]

In holland, the country prosecution tin appeal a not-guilty verdict at the bench. New evidence can be applied during a retrial at a district court. Thus ane tin be tried twice for the same alleged offense. If i is convicted at the commune court, the defence force can brand an appeal on procedural grounds to the supreme courtroom. The supreme court might admit this complaint, and the case will be reopened nevertheless once again, at another district court. Again, new evidence might be introduced by the prosecution.

On 9 April 2013 the Dutch senate voted 36 "yes" versus 35 "no" in favour of a new law that allows the prosecutor to re-try a person who was establish not guilty in court. This new law is limited to crimes where someone died and new bear witness must have been gathered. The new law besides works retroactively.[ commendation needed ]

Islamic republic of pakistan [edit]

Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan protects a person from being punished or prosecuted more than one time for the same offence. Department 403 of The Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates of a state of affairs where as person having once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction and acquitted by such court cannot exist tried once again for the same offence or for any other offence based on similar facts. The telescopic of section 403 is restricted to criminal proceedings and not to civil proceedings and departmental inquiries.

Serbia [edit]

This principle is incorporated into the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and further elaborated in its Criminal Procedure Act.[29]

Due south Africa [edit]

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa forbids a retrial when there has already been an acquittal or a confidence.

Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right ... non to be tried for an offence in respect of an deed or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted ...

—Constitution of the Commonwealth of South Africa, 1996, southward. 35(three)(m)

Republic of korea [edit]

Article 13 of the S Korean constitution provides that no citizen shall be placed in double jeopardy.[30]

U.k. [edit]

England and Wales [edit]

Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Pre-2003 [edit]

The doctrines of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict persisted as part of the common law from the time of the Norman conquest of England; they were regarded as essential elements for protection of the subject'due south liberty and respect for due process of police in that there should be finality of proceedings.[vii] There were only three exceptions, all relatively recent, to the rules:

  • The prosecution has a correct of appeal confronting acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be incorrect in law or in excess of jurisdiction.[31]
  • A retrial is permissible if the interests of justice so require, following appeal against conviction by a defendant.[32]
  • A "tainted amortization", where in that location has been an offence of interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness, tin be challenged in the High Court.[33]

In Connelly five DPP [1964] Air-conditioning 1254, the Law Lords ruled that a accused could non be tried for any offence arising out of essentially the same prepare of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted, unless there are "special circumstances" proven by the prosecution. There is footling case law on the pregnant of "special circumstances", simply it has been suggested that the emergence of new evidence would suffice.[34]

A accused who had been convicted of an offence could be given a second trial for an aggravated grade of that offence if the facts constituting the aggravation were discovered after the first confidence.[35] Past contrast, a person who had been acquitted of a bottom offence could not be tried for an aggravated grade even if new testify became available.[36]

Postal service-2003 [edit]

Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder doubtable to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light. The Police Commission later added its support to this in its report "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" (2001). A parallel report into the criminal justice system by Lord Justice Auld, a past Senior Presiding Approximate for England and Wales, had besides commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report vi months afterward the Constabulary Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that "the exceptions should [...] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify."[37] 1999 was also the year of a highly-publicised case in which a homo, David Smith, was convicted of the murder of a prostitute after having been acquitted of the "almost identical"[38] murder of sex worker Sarah Crump 6 years previously.[39] [38] [40] Considering of the double jeopardy laws that existed at the fourth dimension, Smith could not be re-tried for Crump's murder, despite constabulary inisting they were not looking for anybody else and that the case was closed and the BBC reporting that Smith had "beat" the earlier murder charge.[41] [42] [39] [38]

Both Jack Straw (then Home Secretary) and William Hague (then Leader of the Opposition) favoured the measures suggested past the Auld Report.[43] These recommendations were implemented—non uncontroversially at the time—inside the Criminal Justice Act 2003,[44] [45] and this provision came into force in Apr 2005.[46] Information technology opened certain serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the retrial must be approved past the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Courtroom of Appeal must concur to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling show".[47] And so Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, said that he expected no more than than a handful of cases to be brought in a year.[48]

Pressure level past Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, Billy Dunlop, was initially acquitted and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the demand for legal change.[48] On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Hogg'southward murder. Some years later he had confessed to the criminal offence, and was bedevilled of perjury, but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The instance was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into upshot, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal, in Nov 2005, for permission for a new trial, which was granted.[48] [49] [50] Dunlop pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.[51]

On 13 Dec 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be retried and found guilty of murder by a jury (Dunlop having confessed). In 1996 Weston had been acquitted of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995, simply following the discovery in 2009 of compelling new evidence (Thompson's claret on Weston's boots) he was arrested and tried for a second fourth dimension. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 13 years.[52]

In Dec 2018, bedevilled paedophile Russell Bishop was too retried and constitute guilty by a jury for the Babes in the Woods murders of two ix-twelvemonth-sometime girls, Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway, on 9 Oct 1986. At the original trial in 1987, a key slice of the prosecution's case rested on the recovery of a discarded blue sweatshirt. Under questioning, Bishop denied that the sweatshirt belonged to him, but his girlfriend, Jennifer Johnson, alleged the clothing was Bishop's, before she changed her story in the trial, telling the jury she had never seen the summit before.[53] Attributed to a series of blunders in the prosecution's example, Bishop was acquitted by the jury after ii hours of deliberations.[53] Three years later, Bishop was institute guilty of the abduction, molestation, and attempted murder of a seven-year-old daughter in February 1990.[54] In 2014, re-examined by modern forensics, the sweatshirt contained traces of Bishop'south Dna, and also had fibres on it from both of the girls' habiliment.[54] Tapings taken from Karen Hadaway'southward arm likewise yielded traces of Bishop's Deoxyribonucleic acid.[54] At the 2022 trial, a jury of seven men and 5 women returned a guilty verdict after two-and-a-one-half hours of deliberation.[53] [54]

On 14 November 2019, Michael Weir became the showtime person to exist twice found guilty of a murder. He was originally bedevilled of the murder of Leonard Harris and Rose Seferian in 1999, but the conviction was quashed in 2000 by the Courtroom of Appeal on a technicality. In 2018, new DNA evidence had been obtained and palm prints from both murder scenes were matched to Weir. Twenty years after the original confidence, Weir was bedevilled of the murders for a 2d time.[3]

Scotland [edit]

The double jeopardy dominion no longer applies absolutely in Scotland since the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force on 28 November 2011. The Act introduced iii broad exceptions to the rule: where the acquittal had been tainted by an try to pervert the course of justice; where the defendant admitted their guilt after acquittal; and where there was new testify.[55]

Northern Ireland [edit]

In Northern Ireland, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, constructive 18 Apr 2005,[56] makes certain "qualifying offence" (including murder, rape, kidnapping, specified sexual acts with immature children, specified drug offences, divers acts of terrorism, every bit well every bit in certain cases attempts or conspiracies to commit the foregoing)[57] subject to retrial after acquittal (including acquittals obtained earlier passage of the Act) if there is a finding past the Courtroom of Appeal that there is "new and compelling evidence."[58]

United states of america [edit]

The aboriginal protection of the Common Law against double jeopardy is maintained in its full rigour in the United States. The 5th Amendment to the U.s.a. Constitution provides:

... nor shall whatever person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ...[59]

Conversely, double jeopardy comes with a key exception. Under the multiple sovereignties doctrine, multiple sovereigns can indict a defendant for the aforementioned crime. The federal and country governments tin can have overlapping criminal laws, so a criminal offender may be bedevilled in individual states and federal courts for exactly the aforementioned crime or for different crimes arising out of the same facts.[threescore] However, in 2016, the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.[61] The dual sovereignty doctrine has been the field of study of substantial scholarly criticism.[62]

As described by the U.Due south. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), ane of its primeval cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is non against existence twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the outset trial."[63] The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses iv singled-out prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after sure mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.[64] Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is impanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted.[65]

Prosecution after acquittal [edit]

With two exceptions, the government is not permitted to appeal or retry the defendant once jeopardy attaches to a trial unless the instance does non conclude. Conditions which institute "conclusion" of a example include

  • After the entry of an acquittal, whether:
    • a directed verdict before the case is submitted to the jury,[66] [67]
    • a directed verdict afterward a deadlocked jury,[68]
    • an appellate reversal for sufficiency (except by direct appeal to a higher appellate court),[69] or
    • an "implied acquittal" via confidence of a lesser included offence.[70]
  • re-litigating against the same defence a fact necessarily found by the jury in a prior acquittal,[71] fifty-fifty if the jury hung on other counts.[72] In such a situation, the government is barred by collateral estoppel.

In these cases, the trial is concluded and the prosecution is precluded from appealing or retrying the defendant over the offence to which they were acquitted.

This principle does not prevent the government from highly-seasoned a pre-trial motion to dismiss[73] or other non-merits dismissal,[74] or a directed verdict afterward a jury conviction,[75] nor does it forestall the trial judge from entertaining a motion for afterthought of a directed verdict, if the jurisdiction has so provided by dominion or statute.[76] Nor does it forbid the regime from retrying the accused after an appellate reversal other than for sufficiency,[77] including habeas corpus,[78] or "thirteenth juror" appellate reversals notwithstanding sufficiency[79] on the principle that jeopardy has not "terminated".

The "dual sovereignty" doctrine allows a federal prosecution of an offence to proceed regardless of a previous state prosecution for that same offence[80] and vice versa[81] because "an act denounced every bit a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offence against the peace and nobility of both and may be punished by each".[82] The doctrine is solidly entrenched in the police force, but in that location has been a traditional reluctance in the federal executive branch to gratuitously wield the ability it grants, due to public stance being generally hostile to such activeness.[83]

Exceptions [edit]

The first exception to a ban on retrying a accused is if, in a trial, the accused bribed the approximate into acquitting him or her, since the defendant was not in jeopardy.[84]

The other exception to a ban on retrying a defendant is that a fellow member of the armed forces can be retried by court-martial in a military machine court, even if he or she has been previously acquitted by a noncombatant courtroom.[85]

An individual can be prosecuted by both the United States and an Indian tribe for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions; it was established by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lara that every bit the ii are divide sovereigns, prosecuting a crime under both tribal and federal police does not attach double jeopardy.[86]

Multiple punishment, including prosecution after conviction [edit]

In Blockburger v. United States (1932), the Supreme Courtroom announced the following test: the regime may separately effort and punish the accused for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not.[87] Blockburger is the default rule, unless the governing statute legislatively intends to depart; for instance, Standing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) may be punished separately from its predicates,[88] [89] every bit can conspiracy.[90]

The Blockburger test, originally developed in the multiple punishments context, is also the test for prosecution after conviction.[91] In Grady v. Corbin (1990), the Court held that a double jeopardy violation could prevarication even where the Blockburger test was not satisfied,[92] but Grady was later distinguished in United States v. Felix (1992), when the courtroom reverted to the Blockburger test without completely dismissing the Grady interpretation. The court eventually overruled Grady in U.s. five. Dixon (1993).[93]

Prosecution after mistrial [edit]

The dominion for mistrials depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the defendant moves for a mistrial, in that location is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad religion", i.eastward. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial considering the regime specifically wanted a mistrial.[94] If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial.[95] The same standard governs mistrials granted sua sponte.

Retrials are not mutual, due to the legal expenses to the government. However, in the mid-1980s Georgia antiquarian dealer James Arthur Williams was tried a tape iv times for the murder of Danny Hansford and (after three mistrials) was finally acquitted on the grounds of self-defense.[96] The example is recounted in the book Midnight in the Garden of Skilful and Evil, [97] which was adapted into a pic directed by Clint Eastwood (the motion picture combines the four trials into one).[98]

Come across also [edit]

  • Sam Sheppard
  • Emmett Till
  • David Smith, British man acquitted of the murder of a prostitute in 1993, only to be bedevilled of murdering another sexual practice worker in an "almost identical" example in 1999

Footnotes [edit]

  1. ^ For example, in Western Australia: "It is a defence to a charge of any offence to show that the accused person has already been tried, and convicted or acquitted upon an indictment or prosecution find on which he might take been convicted of the offence with which he is charged, or has already been bedevilled or acquitted of an offence of which he might exist bedevilled upon the indictment or prosecution notice on which he is charged."—[6]
  2. ^ The terminology apparently derived from Law French, and is a mixture of French autrefois 'at another fourth dimension [in the past]' and borrowed-English language loanwords.[8]
  1. ^ Rudstein, David S. (2005). "A Brief History of the Fifth Amendment Guarantee Against Double Jeopardy". William & Mary Bill of Rights Periodical. xiv (1).
  2. ^ Buckland, W. W. (1963). A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (3 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge UP. pp. 695–6.
  3. ^ a b "Michael Weir guilty of 1998 'double jeopardy' murders". BBC News. 14 November 2019. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  4. ^ "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". Archived from the original on 10 January 2016. , s 11 (h), Part I of the Constitution Deed, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Human activity 1982 (Great britain), 1982, c 11
  5. ^ "U.S. Constitution". thirty October 2015. Amend. V.
  6. ^ "Criminal Code Deed Compilation Human activity 1913, Appendix B, Sch "The Criminal Lawmaking" due south 17(1)".
  7. ^ a b Benét, Stephen Vincent (1864). A Treatise on Armed forces Law and the Practice of Courts-martial. p. 97.
  8. ^ Holdsworth, Sir William (1942). A History of English language Law. Vol. iii (5 ed.). London: Methuen and Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 611, 614.
  9. ^ "Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 005 (Convention for the Protection of Homo Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)". Council of Europe. 3 Nov 2020. Archived from the original on 3 Nov 2020. Retrieved 3 November 2020.
  10. ^ a b "European Convention on Human being Rights, as amended by Protocols Nos. xi and 14, supplemented past Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, vii, 12 and 13" (PDF). Council of Europe. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
  11. ^ "Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human being Rights and Fundamental Freedoms". Council of Europe.
  12. ^ a b "Coalition Government to innovate double jeopardy reforms". Victoria'southward double jeopardy laws to be reworked. Archived from the original on 22 March 2012. Retrieved 4 Feb 2012.
  13. ^ Duffy, Conor (7 September 2006). "NSW seeks to scrap double jeopardy principle". The World Today.
  14. ^ "Criminal Constabulary Consolidation (Double Jeopardy) Subpoena Human activity 2008". Retrieved sixteen October 2011.
  15. ^ "Attorney General Christian Porter welcomes double jeopardy law reform". 8 September 2011. Retrieved 16 October 2011.
  16. ^ "WA the adjacent state to axe double jeopardy". 8 September 2011. Retrieved 16 October 2011.
  17. ^ "Double Jeopardy Police force Reform". Tasmanian Authorities Media Releases. Retrieved sixteen October 2011. [ dead link ]
  18. ^ "Criminal Procedure Amendment (Double Jeopardy and Other Matters) Pecker 2011".
  19. ^ "Double Jeopardy Changes Insufficient". Brisbane Times. xx April 2007.
  20. ^ "Lawmaking of penal procedure, article 6" (in French). Legifrance. Retrieved 2 January 2012.
  21. ^ "Lawmaking of penal process, articles 622–626" (in French). Legifrance. Retrieved 2 January 2012.
  22. ^ "Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland" [Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Deutschland] (PDF) (in High german).
  23. ^ Currie, David. "Lochner Abroad: Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection in the Federal Republic of Federal republic of germany" (PDF). German Law Journal. 9 (12). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 Apr 2012.
  24. ^ "Article xx, Section 2". Constitution of India. Archived from the original on 24 Nov 2010. No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the aforementioned offence more than once.
  25. ^ Sharma; Sharma B.k. (2007). Introduction to the Constitution of Bharat. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. pp. 94. ISBN978-81-203-3246-ane.
  26. ^ 刑事裁判を考える：高野隆＠ブログ:二重の危険. Blog.livedoor.jp (xiv May 2007). Retrieved on 2 January 2012.
  27. ^ Sasakura, Kana (6 December 2012). "Double Jeopardy and the Japanese Law". The Wrongful Convictions Blog . Retrieved 29 January 2022.
  28. ^ Cleary, William (June 2005). "The Law of Double Jeopardy in Gimmicky Japan". Iwate University Repository. Artes liberales: Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Iwate University. Retrieved 29 January 2022.
  29. ^ Article half dozen. of the Criminal Procedure Act – ZAKONIK O KRIVIČNOM POSTUPKU ("Sl. list SRJ", br. 70/2001 i 68/2002 i "Sl. glasnik RS", br. 58/2004, 85/2005, 115/2005, 85/2005 – dr. zakon, 49/2007, xx/2009 – dr. zakon i 72/2009)
  30. ^ CHAPTER Ii Rights and Duties of the Citizens, Constitution of the republic of korea.
  31. ^ Magistrates' Courts Deed 1980 ss.28, 111; Supreme Court Act 1981 southward.28
  32. ^ Criminal Appeal Act 1968 south.7
  33. ^ Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 s.54
  34. ^ Attorney-General for Gibraltar v Leoni, Courtroom of Appeal, 1999 (unreported); see Law Com CP No 156, para 2.24
  35. ^ R v Thomas [1950] 1 KB 26
  36. ^ R 5 Beedie [1998] QB 356, Dingwall, 2000
  37. ^ "A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales by The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld". September 2001. Archived from the original on 7 June 2009. Retrieved v January 2012.
  38. ^ a b c "Prostitute murderer gets life". BBC News. 8 Dec 1999. Retrieved twenty April 2022.
  39. ^ a b "Killer beat earlier murder charge". BBC News. 8 December 1999. Retrieved 20 April 2022.
  40. ^ "Police probe killer sadist Life for lorry driver who was cleared of carbon-copy murder of prostitute in 1993". HeraldScotland. nine December 1999. Retrieved xx Apr 2022.
  41. ^ Hope, Christopher (28 Nov 2008). "David Smith'due south size 14 feet could link him to iii more murders". The Telegraph . Retrieved xx April 2022.
  42. ^ Widdup, Ellen (13 April 2012). "'Bigfoot' print may link killer to vice daughter deaths". Evening Standard . Retrieved 20 April 2022.
  43. ^ "Straw moves to fleck Magna Carta double jeopardy law". The Telegraph. 5 Nov 2000. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved xiii October 2014.
  44. ^ Broadbridge, Sally (2 December 2002). "Inquiry paper 02/74: The Criminal Justice Bill: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals" (PDF). Great britain parliament. Archived from the original (PDF) on xx Nov 2006. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
  45. ^ "Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) Role 10: Retrial for serious offences". Her Majesty'due south Jotter Office. twenty November 2003. Retrieved 5 June 2014.
  46. ^ Double jeopardy law ushered out, BBC News. three April 2005
  47. ^ Retrial of Serious Offences. The CPS. Retrieved on 2 Jan 2012.
  48. ^ a b c Murder confidence is legal commencement, BBC News. xi September 2006
  49. ^ Man faces double jeopardy retrial, BBC News. 10 November 2005
  50. ^ The constabulary of 'double jeopardy', BBC News. eleven September 2006
  51. ^ Double jeopardy man is given life, BBC News. six Oct 2006
  52. ^ "'Double jeopardy' man guilty of Vikki Thompson murder". BBC News Oxford. 13 December 2010. Retrieved 13 December 2010.
  53. ^ a b c Evans, Martin; Sawer, Patrick (x December 2018). "Babes in the Forest murders: subsequently the police force blunders and killer'due south deceit, how justice caught upward with Russell Bishop, 32 years on". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on 12 Jan 2022. Retrieved 10 Dec 2018.
  54. ^ a b c d Quinn, Ben (ten December 2018). "Man found guilty of 1986 Brighton 'babes in the woods' murders". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  55. ^ "Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Human activity 2011" legislation.gov.britain retrieved 6 January 2012.
  56. ^ "Kickoff of Provisions – Criminal Justice Human activity of 2003," Archived 28 September 2011 at the Wayback Automobile Northern Republic of ireland Function.
  57. ^ Schedule 5 Part 2 Archived 2 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003.
  58. ^ "Retrial for serious offences," Archived 23 January 2010 at the Wayback Motorcar Role ten of Criminal Justice Act of 2003.
  59. ^ Harper, Timothy (2 October 2007). The Complete Idiot'due south Guide to the U.Due south. Constitution. Penguin Group. p. 109. ISBN978-ane-59257-627-2. Withal, the Fifth Amendment contains several other important provisions for protecting your rights. It is the source of the double jeopardy doctrine, which prevents authorities from trying a person twice for the same criminal offense ...
  60. ^ Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646, 587 U.Due south. ___ (2019).
  61. ^ Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, No. fifteen-108, 579 U.Southward. ___ (2016).
  62. ^ Adler, Adam J. "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem". Yale Law Journal. Northward.p., November. 2014. Spider web. xv Nov 2015. [1]
  63. ^ The states v. Ball , 163 662 (1896).
  64. ^ Northward Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.Due south. 711 (1969).
  65. ^ Crist five. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978).
  66. ^ Fong Foo five. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962).
  67. ^ Sanabria v. United states, 437 U.S. 54 (1978).
  68. ^ United states of america 5. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977).
  69. ^ Burks 5. United states, 437 U.S. i (1978).
  70. ^ Green v. United states of america, 355 U.S. 184 (1957).
  71. ^ Ashe five. Swenson, 397 U.South. 436 (1970).
  72. ^ Yeager v. Us, 557 U.S. 110 (2009).
  73. ^ Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (1973).
  74. ^ U.s. v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978).
  75. ^ Wilson v. The states, 420 U.S. 332 (1975).
  76. ^ Smith 5. Massachusetts, 543 U.Due south. 462 (2005).
  77. ^ Ball v. The states, 163 U.South. 662 (1896).
  78. ^ The states v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463 (1964).
  79. ^ Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982).
  80. ^ Abbate v. United States, 359 U.Due south. 187 (1959).
  81. ^ Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959).
  82. ^ United states v. Lanza, 260 U.Due south. 377 (1922).
  83. ^ Wayne R. LaFave, et al., Criminal Procedure § 25.5(a) (4th ed. 2004).
  84. ^ Aleman v. Judges of the Circuit Courtroom of Cook County , 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998).
  85. ^ SBM Web log (14 November 2011). "Double Jeopardy and the Armed forces: A Sensational Case in Point - SBM Blog". Sbmblog.typepad.com. Retrieved 14 May 2012.
  86. ^ "Us five. Lara - Brief (Merits)". www.justice.gov. 21 October 2014. Retrieved v March 2020.
  87. ^ Blockburger five. United States, 284 U.Southward. 299 (1932) See, e.m., Brown 5. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977).
  88. ^ Garrett 5. United States, 471 U.Due south. 773 (1985).
  89. ^ Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996).
  90. ^ U.s.a. v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992).
  91. ^ Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.Due south. 359 (1983).
  92. ^ Grady five. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990).
  93. ^ U.s.a. v. Dixon, 509 U.Southward. 688 (1993).
  94. ^ Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982).
  95. ^ Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978).
  96. ^ "James Williams - National Registry of Exonerations". world wide web.law.umich.edu . Retrieved 3 Jan 2020.
  97. ^ Domet, Sarah (13 September 2019). "25 Years Later Midnight". Savannah Magazine . Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  98. ^ Ebert, Roger. "Midnight In The Garden Of Skillful And Evil movie review (1997) | Roger Ebert". www.rogerebert.com . Retrieved iii Jan 2020.

Further reading [edit]

  • Sigler, Jay (1969). Double jeopardy; the evolution of a legal and social policy . Cornell Academy Press [1969].

External links [edit]

Australia [edit]

In favour of electric current rule prohibiting retrial subsequently acquittal
  • NSW Public Defenders Function
Opposing the rule that prohibits retrial afterward amortization
  • Questioning Double Jeopardy
  • DoubleJeopardyReform.Org

United Kingdom [edit]

Research and Notes produced for the Great britain Parliament, summarising the history of legal change, views and responses, and analyses:

  • Broadbridge, Emerge (ii Dec 2002). "Inquiry newspaper 02/74: The Criminal Justice Pecker: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals" (PDF). U.k. parliament. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 November 2006. Retrieved five January 2012.
  • Broadbridge, Sally (28 Jan 2009). "Double jeopardy". UK Parliament. Retrieved v January 2012. (straight download link)

U.s. [edit]

  • FindLaw Notation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution
  • Double Jeopardy Game on uscourts.gov (archived from the original on 2006-01-ten)
  • Jack McCall (famous murder case involving a claim of double jeopardy)

Other countries [edit]

  • Police force Reform Committee of Ireland Consultation Paper on Prosecution Appeals Brought on Indictment

daleachend.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

0 Response to "If New Evidence Is Found Can Someone Be Tried Again"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel