Double Jeopardy

[SimplyMe]

I saw an article today about a man in Utah who was acquitted of murder charges a few years ago but in August went to police to confess to the crime. In 1991, while high on Meth, he apparently killed his girlfriends baby while attempting to stop him from crying. That man also thought he would be arrested when he confessed, and when sent home told the police he would willingly turn himself in if the district attorney does press charges.

Because of double jeopardy, this man cannot be tried a second time for murder. Apparently the local prosecutor is unable to charge him with further crimes in relation to the murder and has turned the case over to federal prosecutors.

The poll is meant to be about double jeopardy in general, though I feel this case also raises some interesting questions:

There often seems to be an attitude on these boards that people need to pay for their crimes, and that they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. What about this case?

Are there times that double jeopardy should be allowed, such as with confessions like these?

After the state has tried him, should the federal government be allowed to bring charges?

Do people like this deserve leniency? It would appear that this man has changed his life and is trying to do the right thing, is that someone we want to send to prison?

What would you do, if you had the power, and why?

 

[greeneyedgirl]

Double Jeopardy laws were not written to protect guys like this, instead they are written to protect innocent citizens from being retried again and again. In this instance it will protect this guy but I still agree with the law. Despite the fact that it will still allow a few to go free, we do not need to make it legal to harass American citizens. Prosecutors have an opportunity to convict, if they cannot get the conviction, why should they get a second opportunity to "get it right."

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,


my view is that if there is new evidence to be presented, a new trial is in order. same evidence, no new trial.

pretty simplistic, i suppose

metta,

~v

 

[loriersea]

Double Jeopardy laws were not written to protect guys like this, instead they are written to protect innocent citizens from being retried again and again. In this instance it will protect this guy but I still agree with the law. Despite the fact that it will still allow a few to go free, we do not need to make it legal to harass American citizens. Prosecutors have an opportunity to convict, if they cannot get the conviction, why should they get a second opportunity to "get it right."

I agree with that. Otherwise, you could end up with a situation where a person would be tried over and over, until a jury was found that came to the decision that the prosecution wanted.

But I had thought that double jeopardy only applied if you were going to try the same case. If you had significant new evidence, I thought it didn't apply. I'm probably wrong about that, though.

 

[Rygel]

As far as I know, sending a trial to the feds is not double jeopardy, because double jeopardy applies only to the original jurisdiction. A federal district court is different from a state (county) superior court.

 

[justanobserver]

Namaste all,


my view is that if there is new evidence to be presented, a new trial is in order. same evidence, no new trial.

pretty simplistic, i suppose

metta,

~v

I picked #2 although any examples do not presently come to mind but I agree with vajradhara's thinking - new evidence, new trial; same evidence, no new trial.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

This is gonna bite me in the butt, I'll say it anyways. I don't support the notion of double jeopardy in the first place, and I don't support the idea of instituting for certain times either. If the prosecuting team felt they didn't have a good enough case, then they should just drop the charges, or ask for an extension of sorts to gather new information. All people are afforded rights, innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean we can keep trying them over and over again, simply because they confessed. If we were allowed to do that, how would those who decry the death penalty and it's appeals process a burden on taxpayers, when this would result in the same?

 

[tel0004]

One trial is all they get, I agree that we need to protect the innocent.

 

[Cerberus~]

As far as I know, sending a trial to the feds is not double jeopardy, because double jeopardy applies only to the original jurisdiction. A federal district court is different from a state (county) superior court.

A technicality they use to hammer drug dealers.

This is America. There is no such thing as double jeapordy anymore. Such Constitutional concepts have no place in a police state.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

There often seems to be an attitude on these boards that people need to pay for their crimes, and that they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. What about this case?

Oh, he's not going to remain unpunished for killing a toddler, and that juror who went against her conscience to acquit him won't either. God will make sure of that.

Are there times that double jeopardy should be allowed, such as with confessions like these?

No.

After the state has tried him, should the federal government be allowed to bring charges?

I'm not sure. I'm not an expert in state and federal law. However, can't a person be tried by both the state (say Texas) and the federal government for the same crime?

What would you do, if you had the power, and why?

I would leave it in God's hands. The state had their chance to proove their case and they failed. We have Double Jeopardy laws for a reasons and if we allow a case like this to be an exception to that then what does that mean for other criminal cases? To protect the integrity of our criminal justicse system we cannot allow Double Jeopardy.

DIANE

 

[jayem]

I'm not sure. I'm not an expert in state and federal law. However, can't a person be tried by both the state (say Texas) and the federal government for the same crime?



DIANE

It's my understanding that federal charges could be brought only if the offense is a crime under federal as well as state law. In most cases, murder is only a crime under state law. But killing an employee of the US government is a federal crime. So, if someone kills a postal worker, or an FBI agent, they could face both state and federal charges. If an offender, fleeing from police, crosses a state border, that becomes interstate flight, which is a federal crime. I think most bank robberies now are considered federal crimes, since most all banking involves interstate commerce. And since the Lindbergh case, I believe kidnapping is, by law, considered a federal crime, even if the victim is not transported across a state line.

It's a federal crime to deny someone their civil rights. Killing a person certainly could be considered denying civil rights. So if an accused murderer is acquitted in state court, he might face federal charges of denying civil rights. Even though it's the same act, it's not considered double jeopardy because it's a charge for a different crime. But I don't think prosecutors are always succcessful in trying this tactic.

Personally, I support the prohibition on double jeopardy. Some guilty persons may get off, but I think that's a lesser evil than continually prosecuting the innocent. We don't live in a perfect world, and everything will not have a perfect outcome.

 

[CSmrw]

Strange things are always going to happen. That should not be a reason to add to existing laws or remove existing procedures in place to protect the innocent from state or federal harrasment, ever.

But this case certainly seems tome to show, once again, why the death penalty should be eradicated. If some guilty people go free, surely some innocent people are put to death. No system can pefectly assess guilt or innocence, and the dead can never have their case overturned satsfactorily.

 

[Moros]

Double Jeopardy should apply on a state level. That is to say, a state should not be allowed to try the same crime twice. However, if someone is tried for say, murder, in, let's say, Michigan - and it is tossed out by whatever means, but later more evidence arises, enough to (in the prosecutor's eyes at least) try the person again with a credible basis, then it should be on a federal level. I'm not sure if double jeopardy should apply on a federal level. If a fed case is lost, it wouldnt make sense to pursue it on a state level. Or would it?