Beranda  ›  to Be Put on Trial Again

to Be Put on Trial Again

Ditulis Minggu, 03 April 2022 Tulis Komentar Edit

Legal defence

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence (primarily in common law jurisdictions) that prevents an defendant person from being tried once more on the same (or like) charges post-obit an amortization and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the aforementioned jurisdiction.[1] A variation in civil law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit ('previously acquitted') or autrefois convict ('previously convicted'). These doctrines announced to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle not bis in idem ('non twice against the aforementioned').[2]

Availability as a legal defence [edit]

If a double-jeopardy issue is raised, evidence will be placed earlier the court, which volition typically rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if information technology is, the projected trial volition 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 fabricated a apparent access of guilt. Office of English law for over 800 years, it was partially abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where, following demand for alter, serious offences may exist re-tried following an acquittal if new and compelling testify is found and for the trial to be in the public's interest.[3] In some countries, including Canada, United mexican states, and the Us, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional correct.[four] [5] In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.[a]

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

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

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [edit]

The 72 signatories and 166 parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise, nether Article 14 (7): "No one shall be liable to exist tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally bedevilled or acquitted in accordance with 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).

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) accept adopted the European Convention on Human Rights.[9] The optional Protocol No. 7 to the convention, Article iv, protects against double jeopardy: "No i shall be liable to exist tried or punished over again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same Land for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accord with the law and penal process of that State."[x]

All EU states ratified this optional protocol except for Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[11] In those fellow 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 reopening of a case if new evidence is constitute or if there was a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings:[10]

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the example in accordance with the police and penal procedure of the Land concerned, if in that location is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if at that place has been a central defect in the previous proceedings, which could touch on the outcome of the instance.

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

By country [edit]

Australia [edit]

In contrast to other mutual law nations, Australian double jeopardy law has been held to further prevent the prosecution for perjury following a previous amortization where a finding of perjury would controvert the acquittal. This was confirmed in the case of R v Carroll, where the police institute new bear witness assuredly disproving Carroll'south sworn excuse 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 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,[12] simply there was no formal agreement for each country to introduce it. All states have now called to innovate legislation that mirrors COAG's recommendations on "fresh and compelling" show.

In New Due 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 South Wales Parliament passed legislation abolishing the dominion against double jeopardy in cases where:

  • an acquittal of a "life sentence offence" (murder, tearing gang rape, big commercial supply or production of illegal drugs) is debunked by "fresh and compelling" testify of guilt;
  • an amortization of a "15 years or more sentence offence" was tainted (past perjury, blackmail, or perversion of the form of justice).

On 30 July 2008, Southward Commonwealth of australia also introduced legislation to chip parts of its double jeopardy law, legalising retrials for serious offences with "fresh and compelling" evidence, or if the acquittal was tainted.[14]

In Western Australia, amendments introduced on eight September 2011 allow retrial if "new and compelling" evidence is found. It applies to serious offences where the penalty was life imprisonment or imprisonment for 14 years or more. Acquittal because of tainting (witness intimidation, jury tampering, or perjury) also permits retrial.[15] [xvi]

In Tasmania, on 19 Baronial 2008, amendments were introduced to allow retrial in serious cases if there 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 evidence, where the person acquitted subsequently admits to the criminal offense, or where it becomes articulate that key witnesses take given false evidence".[12] However, retrial applications could only exist made for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, arson causing decease, serious drug offences and aggravated forms of rape and armed robbery.[xviii]

In Queensland on 18 October 2007, the double jeopardy laws were modified to permit 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 than sentence. A "tainted acquittal" requires a conviction for an assistants of justice offence, such as perjury, that led to the original amortization. Unlike reforms in the United kingdom, New Southward Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, this law does not take a retrospective effect, which is unpopular with some advocates of the reform.[19]

Canada [edit]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such equally department 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. However, the prohibition only applies after an defendant person has been "finally" convicted or acquitted. Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal. If the acquittal is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to exist double jeopardy since the verdict of the first trial is annulled. In rare circumstances, a court of appeal might also substitute a conviction for an acquittal. That is not considered double jeopardy since the appeal and the subsequent conviction are then deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an appeal from an amortization to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires the Crown to show that an mistake 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 case, in his volume My Life in Crime and Other Bookish Adventures, Martin Friedland contends that the rule should be inverse so that a retrial is granted but when the error is shown to be responsible for the verdict, non merely a factor.

A notable example is Guy Paul Morin, who was wrongfully convicted in his second trial after the acquittal in his first trial was vacated past the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the Guy Turcotte case, for instance, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned Turcotte'southward not criminally responsible verdict and ordered a second trial subsequently it found that the judge committed an error in the first trial while instructions were given to the jury. Turcotte was after convicted of 2nd-degree murder in the second trial.

France [edit]

Once all appeals take been wearied on a case, the judgement is final and the activity of the prosecution is airtight (code of penal process, art. 6), except if the concluding ruling was forged.[20] Prosecution for a criminal offence already judged is impossible fifty-fifty if incriminating evidence has been found. Still, a person who has been convicted may request another trial on the grounds of new exculpating evidence through a procedure known equally révision.[21]

Germany [edit]

The Basic Constabulary (Grundgesetz) for the Federal Republic of Frg protects against double jeopardy if a final verdict is pronounced. A verdict is concluding if nobody appeals against it.

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

—Art. 103 (3) GG[22] [23]

However, each trial party can appeal against a verdict in the get-go 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 case, 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'south judgement, they tin can entreatment it merely for formal judicial reasons. The example will be checked in the third case (Revisionsgericht), whether all laws are applied correctly.

The rule applies to the whole "historical consequence, which is unremarkably considered a single historical course of actions the separation of which would seem unnatural". This is true even if new facts occur that indicate other crimes.

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

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

  1. if a certificate that was considered accurate during the trial was actually non authentic or forged,
  2. if a witness or authorised practiced wilfully or negligently made a wrong degradation or wilfully gave a wrong uncomplicated testimony,
  3. if a professional person or lay estimate, who made the conclusion, had committed a law-breaking by violating his or her duties as a judge in the case
  4. if an acquitted accused makes a credible confession in court or out of court.

    —§ 362 StPO

In the case of an order of summary punishment, which can be issued by the courtroom without a trial for lesser misdemeanours, there is a farther 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 take been brought frontwards, which establish grounds for a conviction of a felony past themselves or in combination with earlier evidence.

—§ 373a StPO

In Germany, a felony is defined past § 12 (1) StGB as a crime that has a minimum of one yr of imprisonment.

India [edit]

A partial protection against double jeopardy is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Commodity 20 (2) of the Constitution of Bharat, which states "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than in one case".[24] This provision enshrines the concept of autrefois convict, that no one bedevilled of an offence can be tried or punished a second time. Still, it does not extend to autrefois behave, then if a person is acquitted of a criminal offense he tin exist retried. In Republic of india, protection against autrefois acquit is a statutory right, not a central ane. Such protection is provided by provisions of the Code of Criminal Process rather than by the Constitution.[25]

Nihon [edit]

The Constitution of Nihon, which came into effect on May 3, 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 ballot law and was sentenced to paying a fine. The prosecutor wanted a stronger judgement and appealed to the Loftier Courtroom. As a consequence, the defendant was sentenced to 3 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 Commodity 39. On September 27, 1950, all 15 judges of the Supreme Court made the G Bench Determination to rule against the defendant and declared that a criminal proceeding in the District Court, Loftier Court and Supreme Courtroom 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 astringent enough sentence, the defendant will not be placed in double jeopardy.

On October ten, 2003, the Supreme Courtroom made a landmark decision in the area of double jeopardy. The case involved Article 235 of the Penal Code, which addresses "elementary 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 result that there are ii trials for carve up cases of unproblematic larceny, it volition not be considered double jeopardy, even if the prosecutor could accept charged both of them as a single crime of habitual larceny. The accused in this instance had committed crimes of trespassing and uncomplicated larceny on 22 separate occasions. The defense counsel argued that the crimes were actually 1 offence of habitual larceny and that charging them as separate counts was double jeopardy. The Supreme Courtroom ruled that it was within the prosecutor's discretion equally to whether to charge the defendant with one count of habitual larceny or to charge them with multiple counts of trespassing and simple larceny. In either case, information technology is not considered double jeopardy.[26] [27] [28]

Holland [edit]

In the Netherlands, the land prosecution tin appeal a not-guilty verdict at the demote. New testify tin can be applied during a retrial at a district court. Thus one tin be tried twice for the aforementioned declared criminal offence. If ane is convicted at the district court, the defense force can make an appeal on procedural grounds to the supreme courtroom. The supreme courtroom might admit this complaint, and the case will be reopened however again, at another district court. Once again, new bear witness might be introduced by the prosecution.

On nine Apr 2013 the Dutch senate voted 36 "aye" versus 35 "no" in favour of a new constabulary that allows the prosecutor to re-attempt a person who was constitute not guilty in court. This new law is limited to crimes where someone died and new testify must have been gathered. The new constabulary also works retroactively.[ commendation needed ]

Pakistan [edit]

Commodity xiii of the Constitution of Pakistan protects a person from beingness punished or prosecuted more than once for the same offence. Section 403 of The Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates of a state of affairs where as person having in one case been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction and acquitted by such courtroom cannot exist tried again for the aforementioned offence or for any other offence based on like facts. The scope of department 403 is restricted to criminal proceedings and not to ceremonious 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]

South Africa [edit]

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa forbids a retrial when there has already been an amortization 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 deed or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted ...

—Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, south. 35(3)(thousand)

Southward Korea [edit]

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

Uk [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 comport 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 bailiwick's liberty and respect for due process of law in that there should be finality of proceedings.[7] There were but three exceptions, all relatively recent, to the rules:

  • The prosecution has a right of appeal against acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be wrong in police or in backlog of jurisdiction.[31]
  • A retrial is permissible if the interests of justice and then require, following appeal confronting conviction by a defendant.[32]
  • A "tainted acquittal", where there has been an offence of interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness, can be challenged in the High Court.[33]

In Connelly v DPP [1964] Ac 1254, the Law Lords ruled that a accused could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the aforementioned set of facts relied upon in a previous accuse of which he had been acquitted, unless at that place are "special circumstances" proven by the prosecution. There is piffling case police force on the meaning of "special circumstances", but it has been suggested that the emergence of new prove would suffice.[34]

A accused who had been bedevilled of an offence could be given a second trial for an aggravated grade of that offence if the facts constituting the bedevilment were discovered later the starting time conviction.[35] By dissimilarity, a person who had been acquitted of a bottom offence could not exist tried for an aggravated form fifty-fifty if new evidence became available.[36]

Post-2003 [edit]

Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson Study recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject area an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if "fresh and feasible" new testify later on came to light. The Police force 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 Judge for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Written report vi months after the Constabulary Commission written 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 equally Parliament might specify."[37]

Both Jack Straw (then Home Secretary) and William Hague (then Leader of the Opposition) favoured this measure.[38] These recommendations were implemented—not uncontroversially at the time—inside the Criminal Justice Human activity 2003,[39] [forty] and this provision came into force in Apr 2005.[41] It opened certain serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two atmospheric condition: the retrial must be approved by the Manager of Public Prosecutions, and the Courtroom of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".[42] And so Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, said that he expected no more than a handful of cases to exist brought in a year.[43]

Pressure by Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, Baton Dunlop, was initially acquitted and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the need for legal change.[43] On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the commencement person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the aforementioned crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Hogg's murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury, but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new police came into upshot, and his case was referred to the Courtroom of Entreatment, in November 2005, for permission for a new trial, which was granted.[43] [44] [45] Dunlop pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.[46]

On 13 December 2010, Marker Weston became the start person to be retried and found guilty of murder past a jury (Dunlop having confessed). In 1996 Weston had been acquitted of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-nether-Wychwood on 12 August 1995, merely following the discovery in 2009 of compelling new evidence (Thompson'south 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.[47]

In December 2018, convicted paedophile Russell Bishop was also retried and plant guilty by a jury for the Babes in the Wood murders of two 9-year-quondam girls, Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway, on 9 October 1986. At the original trial in 1987, a fundamental slice of the prosecution'south case rested on the recovery of a discarded blue sweatshirt. Nether questioning, Bishop denied that the sweatshirt belonged to him, just his girlfriend, Jennifer Johnson, declared the clothing was Bishop's, before she changed her story in the trial, telling the jury she had never seen the top before.[48] Attributed to a series of blunders in the prosecution's case, Bishop was acquitted by the jury after two hours of deliberations.[48] 3 years later, Bishop was plant guilty of the abduction, molestation, and attempted murder of a 7-twelvemonth-erstwhile daughter in Feb 1990.[49] In 2014, re-examined by modern forensics, the sweatshirt contained traces of Bishop'southward Dna, and too had fibres on it from both of the girls' clothing.[49] Tapings taken from Karen Hadaway's arm besides yielded traces of Bishop'south Dna.[49] At the 2022 trial, a jury of seven men and v women returned a guilty verdict after two-and-a-half hours of deliberation.[48] [49]

On 14 November 2019, Michael Weir became the first person to be twice found guilty of a murder. He was originally convicted of the murder of Leonard Harris and Rose Seferian in 1999, just the conviction was quashed in 2000 by the Court of Appeal on a technicality. In 2018, new DNA evidence had been obtained and palm prints from both murder scenes were matched to Weir. 20 years afterwards the original conviction, Weir was bedevilled of the murders for a 2nd time.[3]

Scotland [edit]

The double jeopardy rule no longer applies admittedly in Scotland since the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force on 28 November 2011. The Act introduced 3 broad exceptions to the dominion: where the acquittal had been tainted past an attempt to pervert the class of justice; where the defendant admitted their guilt later on amortization; and where there was new testify.[fifty]

Northern Ireland [edit]

In Northern Ireland, the Criminal Justice Human action 2003, effective 18 April 2005,[51] makes certain "qualifying offence" (including murder, rape, kidnapping, specified sexual acts with young children, specified drug offences, defined acts of terrorism, as well as in sure cases attempts or conspiracies to commit the foregoing)[52] subject to retrial after amortization (including acquittals obtained before passage of the Act) if there is a finding past the Court of Entreatment that there is "new and compelling testify."[53]

United States [edit]

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

... nor shall any person be bailiwick for the aforementioned offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ...[54]

Conversely, double jeopardy comes with a cardinal exception. Under the multiple sovereignties doctrine, multiple sovereigns can indict a defendant for the same offense. The federal and land governments can have overlapping criminal laws, so a criminal offender may be convicted in private states and federal courts for exactly the same crime or for different crimes arising out of the same facts.[55] However, in 2016, the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico is non a carve up sovereign for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.[56] The dual sovereignty doctrine has been the field of study of substantial scholarly criticism.[57]

Equally described by the U.Due south. Supreme Courtroom in its unanimous decision apropos Ball v. United states 163 U.South. 662 (1896), 1 of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, merely confronting existence twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."[58] The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses 4 distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution later on conviction, subsequent prosecution after sure mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.[59] Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is impanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted.[60]

Prosecution after acquittal [edit]

With 2 exceptions, the government is non permitted to entreatment or retry the defendant once jeopardy attaches to a trial unless the instance does not conclude. Atmospheric condition which constitute "determination" of a instance include

  • Afterwards the entry of an acquittal, whether:
    • a directed verdict earlier the case is submitted to the jury,[61] [62]
    • a directed verdict after a deadlocked jury,[63]
    • an appellate reversal for sufficiency (except by directly appeal to a higher appellate court),[64] or
    • an "implied acquittal" via conviction of a lesser included offence.[65]
  • re-litigating confronting the same defense force a fact necessarily found past the jury in a prior amortization,[66] even if the jury hung on other counts.[67] In such a situation, the authorities 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 forbid the government from appealing a pre-trial motion to dismiss[68] or other not-merits dismissal,[69] or a directed verdict after a jury conviction,[seventy] nor does it foreclose the trial judge from entertaining a motion for reconsideration of a directed verdict, if the jurisdiction has so provided by rule or statute.[71] Nor does information technology prevent the government from retrying the accused after an appellate reversal other than for sufficiency,[72] including habeas corpus,[73] or "thirteenth juror" appellate reversals notwithstanding sufficiency[74] 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 aforementioned offence[75] and vice versa[76] because "an human action denounced as a crime past both national and country sovereignties is an offence against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each".[77] The doctrine is solidly entrenched in the constabulary, but there has been a traditional reluctance in the federal executive branch to gratuitously wield the ability information technology grants, due to public opinion being more often than not hostile to such action.[78]

Exceptions [edit]

The first exception to a ban on retrying a accused is if, in a trial, the defendant bribed the gauge into acquitting him or her, since the defendant was not in jeopardy.[79]

The other exception to a ban on retrying a defendant is that a member of the war machine can be retried past court-martial in a military court, even if he or she has been previously acquitted by a civilian court.[80]

An private can be prosecuted by both the U.s. and an Indian tribe for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions; it was established by the Supreme Court in United States five. Lara that equally the ii are separate sovereigns, prosecuting a crime under both tribal and federal law does non attach double jeopardy.[81]

Multiple punishment, including prosecution later confidence [edit]

In Blockburger v. United States (1932), the Supreme Courtroom announced the following test: the regime may separately attempt and punish the defendant for ii crimes if each offense contains an element that the other does not.[82] Blockburger is the default rule, unless the governing statute legislatively intends to depart; for example, Standing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) may be punished separately from its predicates,[83] [84] as can conspiracy.[85]

The Blockburger test, originally developed in the multiple punishments context, is too the test for prosecution later on conviction.[86] In Grady v. Corbin (1990), the Court held that a double jeopardy violation could lie fifty-fifty where the Blockburger test was not satisfied,[87] but Grady was later distinguished in United States v. Felix (1992), when the court reverted to the Blockburger test without completely dismissing the Grady estimation. The court eventually overruled Grady in United states v. Dixon (1993).[88]

Prosecution after mistrial [edit]

The rule for mistrials depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the accused moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad religion", i.e. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial because the government specifically wanted a mistrial.[89] If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial.[ninety] The same standard governs mistrials granted sua sponte.

Retrials are not common, due to the legal expenses to the regime. However, in the mid-1980s Georgia antiquarian dealer James Arthur Williams was tried a tape four times for the murder of Danny Hansford and (afterwards iii mistrials) was finally acquitted on the grounds of self-defence force.[91] The case is recounted in the book Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, [92] which was adapted into a film directed by Clint Eastwood (the movie combines the 4 trials into i).[93]

Run into also [edit]

  • Sam Sheppard
  • Emmett Till

Footnotes [edit]

  1. ^ For example, in Western Australia: "Information technology is a defense force 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 notice on which he might have been convicted of the offence with which he is charged, or has already been bedevilled or acquitted of an offence of which he might be convicted upon the indictment or prosecution observe on which he is charged."—[6]
  2. ^ The terminology plainly derived from Police French, and is a mixture of French autrefois 'at some other time [in the past]' and borrowed-English loanwords.[8]
  1. ^ Rudstein, David Southward. (2005). "A Brief History of the Fifth Subpoena Guarantee Confronting Double Jeopardy". William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 14 (one).
  2. ^ Buckland, W. Westward. (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. xiv Nov 2019. Retrieved fourteen November 2019.
  4. ^ "Canadian Lease of Rights and Freedoms". Archived from the original on 10 Jan 2016. , s xi (h), Function I of the Constitution Human action, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (Britain), 1982, c 11
  5. ^ "U.S. Constitution". thirty Oct 2015. Amend. V.
  6. ^ "Criminal Code Deed Compilation Human activity 1913, Appendix B, Sch "The Criminal Code" s 17(i)".
  7. ^ a b Benét, Stephen Vincent (1864). A Treatise on Military Police and the Exercise of Courts-martial. p. 97.
  8. ^ Holdsworth, Sir William (1942). A History of English Law. Vol. 3 (five ed.). London: Methuen and Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 611, 614.
  9. ^ "Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 005 (Convention for the Protection of Human being Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)". Council of Europe. 3 Nov 2020. Archived from the original on 3 November 2020. Retrieved iii November 2020.
  10. ^ a b "European Convention on Homo Rights, every bit amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and xiv, supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and xiii" (PDF). Council of Europe. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
  11. ^ "Protocol No. seven to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms". Council of Europe.
  12. ^ a b "Coalition Regime to introduce double jeopardy reforms". Victoria'southward double jeopardy laws to exist reworked. Archived from the original on 22 March 2012. Retrieved four Feb 2012.
  13. ^ Duffy, Conor (7 September 2006). "NSW seeks to fleck double jeopardy principle". The World Today.
  14. ^ "Criminal Law Consolidation (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Act 2008". Retrieved 16 Oct 2011.
  15. ^ "Attorney General Christian Porter welcomes double jeopardy police force reform". 8 September 2011. Retrieved 16 October 2011.
  16. ^ "WA the side by side state to axe double jeopardy". eight September 2011. Retrieved 16 October 2011.
  17. ^ "Double Jeopardy Law Reform". Tasmanian Authorities Media Releases. Retrieved 16 Oct 2011. [ dead link ]
  18. ^ "Criminal Procedure Amendment (Double Jeopardy and Other Matters) Bill 2011".
  19. ^ "Double Jeopardy Changes Insufficient". Brisbane Times. xx April 2007.
  20. ^ "Code of penal procedure, article 6" (in French). Legifrance. Retrieved ii January 2012.
  21. ^ "Code of penal procedure, articles 622–626" (in French). Legifrance. Retrieved 2 January 2012.
  22. ^ "Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Frg" [Bones Police for the Federal Republic of Germany] (PDF) (in German).
  23. ^ Currie, David. "Lochner Abroad: Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection in the Federal Republic of Deutschland" (PDF). German Law Journal. 9 (12). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 April 2012.
  24. ^ "Article 20, Department 2". Constitution of India. Archived from the original on 24 November 2010. No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
  25. ^ Sharma; Sharma B.k. (2007). Introduction to the Constitution of India. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. pp. 94. ISBN978-81-203-3246-1.
  26. ^ 刑事裁判を考える：高野隆＠ブログ:二重の危険. Blog.livedoor.jp (14 May 2007). Retrieved on 2 January 2012.
  27. ^ Sasakura, Kana (6 Dec 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 Contemporary Nippon". Iwate University Repository. Artes liberales: Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Iwate Academy. Retrieved 29 Jan 2022.
  29. ^ Article vi. of the Criminal Process Human activity – 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, 20/2009 – dr. zakon i 72/2009)
  30. ^ Chapter II Rights and Duties of the Citizens, Constitution of the republic of Korea.
  31. ^ Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 ss.28, 111; Supreme Court Act 1981 s.28
  32. ^ Criminal Entreatment Human activity 1968 s.seven
  33. ^ Criminal Process and Investigations Act 1996 south.54
  34. ^ Attorney-General for Gibraltar v Leoni, Court of Appeal, 1999 (unreported); see Police force Com CP No 156, para 2.24
  35. ^ R five Thomas [1950] 1 KB 26
  36. ^ R v 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 Jan 2012.
  38. ^ "Straw moves to scrap Magna Carta double jeopardy constabulary". The Telegraph. 5 Nov 2000. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 13 October 2014.
  39. ^ Broadbridge, Sally (2 December 2002). "Enquiry paper 02/74: The Criminal Justice Beak: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals" (PDF). Britain parliament. Archived from the original (PDF) on twenty November 2006. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
  40. ^ "Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) Function 10: Retrial for serious offences". Her Majesty's Jotter Role. 20 Nov 2003. Retrieved 5 June 2014.
  41. ^ Double jeopardy law ushered out, BBC News. three April 2005
  42. ^ Retrial of Serious Offences. The CPS. Retrieved on 2 Jan 2012.
  43. ^ a b c Murder confidence is legal starting time, BBC News. 11 September 2006
  44. ^ Man faces double jeopardy retrial, BBC News. x November 2005
  45. ^ The police force of 'double jeopardy', BBC News. 11 September 2006
  46. ^ Double jeopardy human being is given life, BBC News. 6 Oct 2006
  47. ^ "'Double jeopardy' man guilty of Vikki Thompson murder". BBC News Oxford. 13 Dec 2010. Retrieved 13 December 2010.
  48. ^ a b c Evans, Martin; Sawer, Patrick (ten December 2018). "Babes in the Wood murders: after the law blunders and killer'southward deceit, how justice defenseless up with Russell Bishop, 32 years on". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  49. ^ a b c d Quinn, Ben (ten December 2018). "Man found guilty of 1986 Brighton 'babes in the wood' murders". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 10 Dec 2018.
  50. ^ "Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011" legislation.gov.uk retrieved 6 Jan 2012.
  51. ^ "Commencement of Provisions – Criminal Justice Act of 2003," Archived 28 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine Northern Republic of ireland Office.
  52. ^ Schedule 5 Part 2 Archived 2 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003.
  53. ^ "Retrial for serious offences," Archived 23 January 2010 at the Wayback Motorcar Part 10 of Criminal Justice Act of 2003.
  54. ^ Harper, Timothy (two October 2007). The Complete Idiot's Guide to the U.Southward. Constitution. Penguin Group. p. 109. ISBN978-1-59257-627-2. However, the Fifth Amendment contains several other of import provisions for protecting your rights. Information technology is the source of the double jeopardy doctrine, which prevents government from trying a person twice for the same crime ...
  55. ^ Chance 5. United States, No. 17-646, 587 U.Due south. ___ (2019).
  56. ^ Puerto Rico 5. Sanchez Valle, No. xv-108, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).
  57. ^ Adler, Adam J. "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Quondam Trouble". Yale Police Journal. N.p., Nov. 2014. Web. 15 November 2015. [1]
  58. ^ Us five. Ball , 163 662 (1896).
  59. ^ North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.South. 711 (1969).
  60. ^ Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978).
  61. ^ Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.South. 141 (1962).
  62. ^ Sanabria 5. The states, 437 U.Southward. 54 (1978).
  63. ^ United states of america v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977).
  64. ^ Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. i (1978).
  65. ^ Green 5. United States, 355 U.Due south. 184 (1957).
  66. ^ Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970).
  67. ^ Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009).
  68. ^ Serfass five. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (1973).
  69. ^ United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978).
  70. ^ Wilson v. United states, 420 U.S. 332 (1975).
  71. ^ Smith five. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (2005).
  72. ^ Brawl five. United States, 163 U.Southward. 662 (1896).
  73. ^ United States v. Tateo, 377 U.Southward. 463 (1964).
  74. ^ Tibbs 5. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982).
  75. ^ Abbate 5. United States, 359 U.Southward. 187 (1959).
  76. ^ Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.Southward. 121 (1959).
  77. ^ United states of america v. Lanza, 260 U.Due south. 377 (1922).
  78. ^ Wayne R. LaFave, et al., Criminal Procedure § 25.5(a) (4th ed. 2004).
  79. ^ Aleman v. Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County , 138 F.3d 302 (seventh Cir. 1998).
  80. ^ SBM Blog (xiv November 2011). "Double Jeopardy and the Military: A Sensational Case in Point - SBM Web log". Sbmblog.typepad.com. Retrieved xiv May 2012.
  81. ^ "United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits)". www.justice.gov. 21 October 2014. Retrieved v March 2020.
  82. ^ Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.South. 299 (1932) Encounter, e.g., Brown 5. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977).
  83. ^ Garrett v. United States, 471 U.Southward. 773 (1985).
  84. ^ Rutledge v. Usa, 517 U.S. 292 (1996).
  85. ^ U.s.a. v. Felix, 503 U.Southward. 378 (1992).
  86. ^ Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983).
  87. ^ Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.South. 508 (1990).
  88. ^ United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993).
  89. ^ Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982).
  90. ^ Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978).
  91. ^ "James Williams - National Registry of Exonerations". www.police force.umich.edu . Retrieved iii January 2020.
  92. ^ Domet, Sarah (13 September 2019). "25 Years After Midnight". Savannah Magazine . Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  93. ^ Ebert, Roger. "Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil movie review (1997) | Roger Ebert". www.rogerebert.com . Retrieved three January 2020.

Further reading [edit]

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

External links [edit]

Australia [edit]

In favour of current rule prohibiting retrial afterward acquittal
  • NSW Public Defenders Office
Opposing the rule that prohibits retrial later on 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 (2 Dec 2002). "Research paper 02/74: The Criminal Justice Nib: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals" (PDF). UK parliament. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 November 2006. Retrieved v January 2012.
  • Broadbridge, Emerge (28 January 2009). "Double jeopardy". U.k. Parliament. Retrieved 5 January 2012. (direct download link)

United states [edit]

  • FindLaw Annotation of the Fifth 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]

  • Law Reform Commission of Ireland Consultation Newspaper on Prosecution Appeals Brought on Indictment

jacquesthersemeaten.blogspot.com

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

Belum ada Komentar untuk "to Be Put on Trial Again"

Posting Komentar

Langganan: Posting Komentar (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel