Double Jeopardy Clause

dual sovereigntydouble jeopardydual sovereignty doctrine amend. Vdoctrine of dual sovereigntydouble jeopardy" clausedual sovereigndual sovereignsFifth Amendmentseparate sovereignty exception
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense: * retrial after an acquittal; * retrial after a conviction; * retrial after certain mistrials; and * multiple punishmentwikipedia
119 Related Articles

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Fifth AmendmentFifthU.S. Const. amend. V
Another provision, the Double Jeopardy Clause, provides the right of defendants to be tried only once in federal court for the same offense.

Ashe v. Swenson

In Ashe v. Swenson, the defendant was accused of robbing seven poker players during a game.
The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a state from relitigating a question already decided in favor of a defendant at a previous trial.

United States v. Perez

For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not, as was decided by the Supreme Court in United States v. Perez.
The decision held that when a criminal trial results in a hung jury, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the defendant from being retried.

Burks v. United States

As noted above, if the trial court made a determination of evidentiary insufficiency, the determination would constitute a final acquittal; in Burks v. United States, the Court held that "it should make no difference that the reviewing court, rather than the trial court, determined the evidence to be insufficient."
It established the constitutional rule that where an appellate court reverses a criminal conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Double Jeopardy Clause shields the defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense.

Oregon v. Kennedy

In Oregon v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that "only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to 'goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion."
However, if the prosecution's conduct was "intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial," double jeopardy protects the defendant from retrial.

Harry Aleman

Harry "The Hook" AlemanHarry Aleman v. Judges of the Criminal Division, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, et al.
One such case is the trial of Harry Aleman, who was tried and acquitted in 1977 in Cook County, Illinois for the September 1972 death of William Logan.
*Double Jeopardy Clause

Gamble v. United States

The dual sovereignty nature of the Double Jeopardy Clause was reheard as part of Gamble v. United States, decided in June 2019.
17-646, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case about the separate sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime as the governments are "separate sovereigns".

Criminal law in the Taney Court

Kentucky v. DennisonTaney CourtUnited States v. Dawson
The earliest case at the Supreme Court of the United States to address the matter is Fox v. Ohio in 1847, in which the petitioner, Malinda Fox, was appealing a conviction of a state crime of passing a counterfeit silver dollar.
In Fox v. Ohio (1847) and Moore v. Illinois (1852), the Court reject the argument that the Double Jeopardy Clause was violated by permitting the state and federal government to criminalize the same conduct (which could hypothetically lead to duplicative prosecutions).

United States v. Felix

In United States v. Felix, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "a[n]...offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes."

Supreme Court of the United States

United States Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme CourtSupreme Court
In United States v. Felix, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "a[n]...offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes."

Crime

criminalcriminalscriminal offence
In United States v. Felix, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "a[n]...offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes." Double jeopardy also does not apply if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal standard (crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas civil wrongs need only be proven by preponderance of evidence or in some matters, clear and convincing evidence).

Conspiracy (criminal)

conspiracycriminal conspiracyconspiring
In United States v. Felix, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "a[n]...offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes."

Blockburger v. United States

BlockburgerBlockburger test
In Blockburger v. United States, the Supreme Court held that "where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not".

Poker

poker playerpoker gameProfessional Poker Player
In Ashe v. Swenson, the defendant was accused of robbing seven poker players during a game.

Collateral estoppel

issue preclusioncollaterally estoppedmutuality of estoppel
Underneath that conceptual umbrella is the concept of collateral estoppel.

Lesser included offense

alternative verdictlesser included offencemerger doctrine
And it is not unusual for a prosecutor to charge a person with "lesser included offenses".

Harmless error

harmlesserror was harmlessharmless errors
The State of Georgia contended that since Price was not convicted on the greater offense at retrial, which was the case in Brantley, the second indictment constituted "harmless error".

Involuntary dismissal

dismissdismissaldismissed
Cases involuntarily dismissed because of insufficient evidence may constitute a final judgment for these purposes, though many state and federal laws allow for substantially limited prosecutorial appeals from these orders.

Trial

mistrialtriedtrials
For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not, as was decided by the Supreme Court in United States v. Perez. Also, a retrial after a conviction that had been set aside upon a motion for new trial, and that subsequently has been reversed on appeal or vacated in a collateral proceeding (such as habeas corpus) would not violate double jeopardy, for the judgment in the first trial had been invalidated.

Habeas corpus

writ of habeas corpuswrit of ''habeas corpushabeas petition
Also, a retrial after a conviction that had been set aside upon a motion for new trial, and that subsequently has been reversed on appeal or vacated in a collateral proceeding (such as habeas corpus) would not violate double jeopardy, for the judgment in the first trial had been invalidated.

Judgment notwithstanding verdict

judgment notwithstanding the verdictnon obstante verdictoJNOV
Prosecutors may appeal when a trial judge sets aside a jury verdict for conviction with a judgment notwithstanding verdict for the defendant.

Cook County, Illinois

Cook CountyCookCook counties
One such case is the trial of Harry Aleman, who was tried and acquitted in 1977 in Cook County, Illinois for the September 1972 death of William Logan.

Bad faith

mala fidesmala fidebad-faith
An exception exists, however, where the prosecutor or judge has acted in bad faith.

Reasonable doubt

beyond a reasonable doubtbeyond reasonable doubtCan I Live
Double jeopardy also does not apply if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal standard (crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas civil wrongs need only be proven by preponderance of evidence or in some matters, clear and convincing evidence).

Tort

tort lawtortstortfeasor
Double jeopardy also does not apply if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal standard (crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas civil wrongs need only be proven by preponderance of evidence or in some matters, clear and convincing evidence).