56-438: Double jeopardy is a type of procedural defence in legal terminology. Double jeopardy may also refer to: Double jeopardy In jurisprudence , double jeopardy is a procedural defence (primarily in common law jurisdictions) that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in
112-408: A de novo review of both legal and factual findings. In doing so, it held that the scope of an appeal may not extend to challenging findings of fact where no legal error has been made. At this point, the court reasoned, the process ceases to be an appeal and instead becomes a new trial disguised as one. A notable example cited by critics of Canada's appeal system is the case of Guy Paul Morin , who
168-421: A 2018 Supreme Court ruling. Depending on one's location, a background check may highlight not only convictions or plea bargains but also arrests, charges that were dropped or dismissed, and acquittals. A "not guilty" finding is generally considered an acquittal, but there is a subtle difference between the two. A defendant found "not guilty" is not legally answerable for the criminal charge filed. An acquittal
224-542: A Court of competent jurisdiction and acquitted by such court cannot be tried again for the same offence or for any other offence based on similar facts. The scope of section 403 is restricted to criminal proceedings and not to civil proceedings and departmental inquiries. This principle is incorporated into the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and further elaborated in its Criminal Procedure Act. The Bill of Rights in
280-405: 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. In contrast to other common law 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
336-445: A conviction of a felony by themselves or in combination with earlier evidence. In Germany, a felony is defined by § 12 (1) StGB as a crime that has a minimum of one year of imprisonment. A partial protection against double jeopardy is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India , which states "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once". This provision enshrines
392-462: A crime already judged is impossible even if incriminating evidence has been found. However, a person who has been convicted may request another trial on the grounds of new exculpating evidence through a procedure known as révision . French law allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal. The Basic Law ( Grundgesetz ) for the Federal Republic of Germany protects against double jeopardy if
448-495: A defendant bribes a judge and obtains acquittal due to a bench trial, the acquittal is invalid because the defendant was never in jeopardy in the first place. Harry Aleman v. Judges of the Criminal Division, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, et al. , 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998). An acquittal, while conclusive as to the criminal law, does not necessarily bar private civil actions in tort or on some other grounds as
504-509: A defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness. Scots law has two acquittal verdicts: not guilty and not proven . However, a verdict of "not proven" does not give rise to the double jeopardy rule. In England and Wales, which share a common legal system, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 creates an exception to
560-409: A final verdict is pronounced. A verdict is final if nobody appeals against it. Nobody shall be punished multiple times for the same crime on the basis of general criminal law. However, each trial party can appeal against a verdict in the first instance. The prosecution or the defendants can appeal against a judgement if they disagree with it. In this case, the trial starts again in the second instance,
616-502: A minimum sentence of 20 years or more are now possible even if the original trial preceded the 2006 reform. On 17 October 2006, the New South Wales Parliament passed legislation abolishing the rule against double jeopardy in cases where: On 30 July 2008, South Australia also introduced legislation to scrap parts of its double jeopardy law, legalising retrials for serious offences with "fresh and compelling" evidence, or if
SECTION 10
#1732855953963672-427: A person who was found not guilty in court. This new law is limited to crimes where someone died and new evidence must have been gathered. The new law also works retroactively. Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan protects a person from being punished or prosecuted more than once for the same offence. Section 403 of The Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates a situation where a person having once been tried by
728-417: A previously litigated subject matter. A variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea , which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit ('previously acquitted') or autrefois convict ('previously convicted'). These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law , in the broader principle non bis in idem ('not twice against the same'). If a double jeopardy issue
784-512: A result of the facts alleged in the charge. For example, the City of Los Angeles was held liable in 1994 for the 1991 Rodney King beating despite state acquittals in 1992 of all of its four main LAPD defendants, and in 1997 O. J. Simpson was held civilly liable for wrongful death even after being tried and acquitted in 1995 of murder . An acquittal also does not bar prosecution for the same offenses under
840-513: A statute of a different jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, someone acquitted of a state murder charge can be retried for the same actions on a federal charge of violating civil rights , and police acquitted of a state charge of felonious assault, as in the Rodney King case, can likewise be tried on federal civil rights charges. An acquittal does not mean the defendant is innocent of
896-532: Is "fresh and compelling" evidence. In Victoria on 21 December 2011, legislation was passed allowing new trials where there is "fresh and compelling DNA evidence, where the person acquitted subsequently admits to the crime, or where it becomes clear that key witnesses have given false evidence". However, retrial applications could only be made for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, arson causing death, serious drug offences and aggravated forms of rape and armed robbery. In Queensland on 18 October 2007,
952-482: Is a constitutional right. In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute . In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit ('previously acquitted') or autrefois convict ('previously convicted'), with the same effect. 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 as, for example, in
1008-458: Is convicted at the district court, the defence can make an appeal on procedural grounds to the supreme court. The supreme court might admit this complaint, and the case will be reopened yet 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
1064-414: Is permissible after a final judgement, In the case of an order of summary punishment , which can be issued by the court without a trial for lesser misdemeanours, there is a further exception: A retrial not in favour of the defendant is also permissible if the defendant has been convicted in a final order of summary punishment and new facts or evidence have been brought forward, which establish grounds for
1120-411: Is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will typically rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, certain 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 law for over 800 years, it
1176-399: Is usually considered a single historical course of actions the separation of which would seem unnatural". This is true even if new facts come to light that indicate other crimes. The Penal Procedural Code ( Strafprozessordnung ) permits a retrial ( Wiederaufnahmeverfahren ), if it is in favour of the defendant or if the following events have happened: A retrial not in favour of the defendant
SECTION 20
#17328559539631232-405: Is when a judge or jury finds a defendant "not guilty" of the crime charged. "Not guilty" also refers to a type of plea in a criminal case. To avoid confusion, the term "acquittal" is often used in place of it to refer to the court judgment. When multiple charges are filed against a defendant, and a judge or jury finds the defendant not guilty of some charges but guilty of others, the defendant
1288-648: The Constitution of South Africa forbids a retrial when there has already been an acquittal or a conviction. Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right ... not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted ... Article 13 of the South Korean constitution provides that no citizen shall be placed in double jeopardy. Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since
1344-461: The Criminal Justice Act 2003 . 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's liberty and respect for due process of law in that there should be finality of proceedings. There were only three exceptions, all relatively recent, to
1400-521: The European Union (Art. 54 Schengen Convention ), and in various extradition treaties between two countries. The 72 signatories and 166 parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise, under Article 14 (7): "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with
1456-571: The Constitution. The Constitution of Japan , which came into effect on 3 May 1947, states in Article 39 that No person shall be 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 defendant was found guilty in the District Court for crimes related to the election law and
1512-578: The Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the area of double jeopardy. The case involved Article 235 of the Penal Code, which addresses "simple larceny", and Article 2 of the Law for Prevention and Disposition of Robbery, Theft, etc., which addresses "habitual larceny". The Court ruled that in the event that there are two trials for separate cases of simple larceny, it will not be considered double jeopardy, even if
1568-573: The Supreme Court made the Grand Bench Decision to rule against the defendant and declared that a criminal proceeding in the District Court, High Court and Supreme Court is all one case and that there is no double jeopardy. In other words, if the prosecutor appeals against a judgement of not guilty or a guilty decision that they think does not impose a severe enough sentence, the defendant will not be placed in double jeopardy. On 10 October 2003,
1624-514: The United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above. Member states may, however, implement legislation which allows the reopening of a case if new evidence is found or if there was a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings: The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent
1680-484: The United States cannot appeal an acquittal because of constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy . The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled: It was decided in Fong Foo v. United States , 369 U.S. 141 (1962) that the prosecution cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal by a jury. In United States v. Jenkins , 420 U.S. 358 (1975), this was held applicable to bench trials . In Arizona v. Rumsey , 467 U.S. 203 (1984), it
1736-504: The United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how
Double Jeopardy - Misplaced Pages Continue
1792-475: The acquittal was tainted. In Western Australia , amendments introduced on 8 September 2011 allow retrial if "new and compelling" evidence is found. It applies to serious offences where the penalty is life imprisonment or imprisonment for 14 years or more. Acquittal because of tainting ( witness intimidation , jury tampering , or perjury) also permits retrial. In Tasmania , on 19 August 2008, amendments were introduced to allow retrial in serious cases if there
1848-483: The acquittal. This was confirmed in the case of R v Carroll , where the police found new evidence convincingly disproving Carroll's sworn alibi two decades after he had been acquitted of murder charges in the death of Ipswich child Deidre Kennedy, and successfully prosecuted him for perjury. Public outcry following the overturn of his conviction (for perjury) by the High Court has led to widespread calls for reform of
1904-681: The appeal and the subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial. For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires the Crown to show that an error in law was made during the trial and that it contributed to the verdict. It has been argued that this test is unfairly beneficial to the prosecution. For instance, in his book My Life in Crime and Other Academic Adventures , Martin Friedland contends that
1960-512: The charge presented—only that the prosecutor failed to prove that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt . The charge may remain on the defendant's criminal record in the United States even after an acquittal, depending on the state regulations. A federal criminal record may include acquittals, case dismissals, and convictions. In the UK, police forces can reveal whether individuals have been acquitted of criminal charges when issuing information for enhanced record checks, according to
2016-457: The concept of autrefois convict , that no one convicted of an offence can be tried or punished a second time. However, it does not extend to autrefois acquit , and so if a person is acquitted of a crime he can be retried. In India, protection against autrefois acquit is a statutory right , not a fundamental one. Such protection is provided by provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than by
2072-400: 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 procedure of that State." All EU states ratified this optional protocol except for Germany,
2128-411: The court of appeal ( Berufungsgericht ), which reconsiders the facts and reasons and delivers a final judgement. If one of the parties disagrees with the second instance's judgement, they can appeal it only for formal judicial reasons. The case will be checked in the third instance ( Revisionsgericht ) to see whether all laws were correctly applied. The rule applies to the whole "historical event, which
2184-400: The defendant with one count of habitual larceny or to charge them with multiple counts of trespassing and simple larceny. In either case, it is not considered double jeopardy. In the Netherlands, the state prosecution can appeal a not-guilty verdict at the bench. New evidence can be applied during a retrial at a district court . Thus one can be tried twice for the same alleged crime. If one
2240-485: 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 crime carrying a 25-year or more sentence. A "tainted acquittal" requires a conviction for an administration of justice offence, such as perjury, that led to the original acquittal. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. However,
2296-616: The double jeopardy rule , by providing that retrials may be ordered if "new and compelling evidence" comes to light after an acquittal for a serious crime. Also, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 permits a "tainted acquittal" to be set aside in circumstances where it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that an acquittal has been obtained by violence or threats of violence to a witness or juror/s. In modern England and Wales, and in all countries that substantially follow English criminal procedure, an acquittal normally results in
Double Jeopardy - Misplaced Pages Continue
2352-405: The immediate liberation of the defendant from custody, assuming no other charges against the defendant remain to be tried. However, until 1774, a defendant acquitted by an English or Welsh court would be remanded to jail until he had paid the jailer for the costs of his confinement. It was known for acquitted persons to die in jail for lack of jailer's fees. With one exception, the prosecution in
2408-429: The jury. Turcotte was later convicted of second-degree murder in the second trial. Another well-known example is Henry Morgentaler , whose repeated acquittals by juries were overturned on appeal in multiple provinces. Once all appeals have been exhausted on a case, the judgement is final and the action of the prosecution is closed (code of penal procedure, art. 6), except if the final ruling was forged . Prosecution for
2464-490: The law along the lines of the England and Wales legislation. During a Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting of 2007, model legislation to rework double jeopardy laws was drafted, but there was no formal agreement for each state to introduce it. All states have now chosen to introduce legislation that mirrors COAG's recommendations on "fresh and compelling" evidence. In New South Wales , retrials of serious cases with
2520-509: The law and penal procedure of each country." However, it does not apply to prosecutions by two different sovereigns (unless the relevant extradition treaty expresses a prohibition). All members of the Council of Europe (which includes nearly all European countries and every member of the European Union ) have adopted the European Convention on Human Rights . The optional Protocol No. 7 to
2576-445: The prohibition only applies after an accused person has been "finally" convicted or acquitted. Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal based on legal errors. In rare circumstances, when a trial judge made all the factual findings necessary for a finding of guilt but misapplied the law, a court of appeal might also directly substitute an acquittal for a conviction. These cases are not considered double jeopardy because
2632-431: The prosecutor could have charged both of them as a single crime of habitual larceny. The defendant in this case had committed crimes of trespassing and simple larceny on 22 occasions. The defence counsel argued that the crimes were actually one offence of habitual larceny and that charging them as separate counts was double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled that it was within the prosecutor's discretion as to whether to charge
2688-451: The reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case. In many European countries, the prosecution may appeal an acquittal to a higher court. This is not regarded as double jeopardy, but as
2744-423: 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 factor. Though the charter permits appeals of acquittals, there are still constitutional limits imposed on the scope of these appeals. In Corp. Professionnelle des Médecins v. Thibault , the Supreme Court struck down a provision of Quebec law that allowed appellate courts to conduct
2800-400: The rules: Acquittal In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as
2856-445: The same jurisdiction . Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law – in civil law , a similar concept is that of res judicata . The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions bars only an identical prosecution for the same offence; however, a different offence may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger – it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from
SECTION 50
#17328559539632912-423: Was based on the judge's incorrect interpretation of the law, the finding of life imprisonment in the original case constituted an acquittal of the death penalty. Thus, death could not be imposed upon a subsequent trial. Even though the acquittal of the death penalty was erroneous in that case, the acquittal must stand. The only exception to an acquittal being final is if the defendant was never in actual jeopardy. If
2968-409: Was partially abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by 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 if the trial is found to be in the public's interest. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico, and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy"
3024-401: Was ruled that in a bench trial, when a judge was holding a separate hearing after the jury trial, to decide if the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment , the judge decided that the circumstances of the case did not permit death to be imposed. On appeal, the judge's ruling was found to be erroneous. However, even though the decision to impose a life sentence instead of death
3080-472: Was sentenced to paying a fine. The prosecutor wanted a stronger sentence and appealed to the High Court. As a result, the defendant was sentenced to three months of imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the sentence was excessive when compared with precedents and that he had been placed in double jeopardy, which was in violation of Article 39. On 27 September 1950, all fifteen judges of
3136-465: Was wrongfully convicted in his second trial after the acquittal in his first trial was vacated by the Supreme Court. Another notable use of the system occurred in the case of child murderer Guy Turcotte , the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the initial verdict of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder and ordered a second trial after it found that the judge had erroneously instructed
#962037