Double jeopardy

Jeopardya second trialalready been triedautrefoisautrefois acquitautrefois convictBilly Dunlopcannot be tried againcannot be tried for the same crime twicecannot be tried for the same offense twice
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a valid acquittal or conviction.wikipedia
370 Related Articles

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICCPRInternational Covenant of Civil and Political RightsInternational Convention on Civil and Political Rights
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 the law and penal procedure of each country."
It establishes the Presumption of innocence and forbids double jeopardy.

Non bis in idem

ne bis in idemmultiple punishment for the same criminal act
The doctrine appears to have originated in Roman law, in the principle non bis in idem ("an issue once decided must not be raised again").
It is a legal concept originating in Roman civil law, but it is essentially the equivalent of the double jeopardy (autrefois acquit) doctrine found in common law jurisdictions.

Procedural defense

procedural safeguardsprocedural defence
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a valid acquittal or conviction.

Acquittal

acquittednot guiltyacquit
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 the law and penal procedure of each country."
With one exception, in the United States an acquittal cannot be appealed by the prosecution because of constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.

R v Carroll

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.
The court held that charging Raymond John Carroll with perjuring himself in the earlier murder trial by swearing he did not kill the baby Deidre Kennedy was tantamount to claiming he had committed the murder and was thus a contravention of the principles of double jeopardy.

Peremptory plea

autrefois convictplea in barautrefois acquit
In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit (formerly acquitted) or autrefois convict (formerly convicted), with the same effect.
In a criminal case, the peremptory pleas are the plea of autrefois convict, the plea of autrefois acquit, and the plea of pardon.

European Convention on Human Rights

European Convention of Human RightsECHRConvention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
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.

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Criminal Justice Act20032003 c. 44
Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
It amends the law relating to police powers, bail, disclosure, allocation of criminal offences, prosecution appeals, autrefois acquit ("double jeopardy"), hearsay, propensity evidence, bad character evidence, sentencing and release on licence.

Guy Paul Morin

Christine Jessop
A notable example is Guy Paul Morin, who was wrongfully convicted in his second trial after the acquittal in his first trial was vacated by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The retrial was delayed until 1992 by Morin's own appeals based on the Crown's non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence and by other issues, including the double jeopardy rule.

Murder of Stephen Lawrence

Stephen LawrenceMacpherson ReportStephen Lawrence Inquiry
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 suspect to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light.
It also led to the partial revocation of the rule against double jeopardy.

Fundamental rights in India

Fundamental Rightsfundamental rightRight to Life
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".

Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011

The double jeopardy rule no longer applies absolutely in Scotland since the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force on 28 November 2011.
The Act creates a statutory basis for the rule against trying a person twice for the same crime (known as double jeopardy).

Jack Straw

Straw The Right Honourable '''Jack StrawThe Right Honourable '''Jack Straw
Both Jack Straw (then Home Secretary) and William Hague (then Leader of the Opposition) favoured this measure.
It also recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases to allow a retrial upon new and compelling evidence; this became law in 2005.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

section 11(d)section 1111(d)
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy.
This provision prohibits double jeopardy, but only applies after the trial is finally concluded.

Blockburger v. United States

BlockburgerBlockburger test
In Blockburger v. United States (1932), the Supreme Court announced the following test: the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not.
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States set an important standard to prevent double jeopardy.

Constitution of South Africa

ConstitutionSouth African ConstitutionConstitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa forbids a retrial when there has already been an acquittal or a conviction.

Constitution of Japan

ConstitutionJapanese Constitution1947 constitution
The Constitution of Japan states in Article 39 that

United States v. Dixon

In Grady v. Corbin (1990), the Court held that a double jeopardy violation could lie even where the Blockburger test was not satisfied, but Grady was overruled in United States v. Dixon (1993).
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning double jeopardy.

Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle

held
However, in 2016, the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
In essence, the clause establishes that an individual cannot be tried for the same offense twice under the same sovereignty.

Connelly v DPP

In Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254, the Law Lords ruled that a defendant could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the same set of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted, unless there are "special circumstances" proven by the prosecution.
Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254 was a landmark trial in the United Kingdom where the House of Lords ruled regarding double jeopardy in British law.

Emmett Till

J.W. MilamRoy BryantEmmett Louis Till
Protected against double jeopardy, the two men publicly admitted in a 1956 interview with Look magazine that they had killed Till.

Scotland

Scottish馃彺鬆仹鬆仮鬆伋鬆仯鬆伌鬆伩Scots
The double jeopardy rule no longer applies absolutely in Scotland since the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force on 28 November 2011.
Both "not guilty" and "not proven" result in an acquittal, typically with no possibility of retrial in accordance with the rule of double jeopardy.

Puerto Rico

Puerto RicanCommonwealth of Puerto RicoPuerto Rica
However, in 2016, the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Such a parallel accusation would constitute double jeopardy.

Jack McCall

Hickok's assassin
Agreeing, the federal court in Yankton, Dakota Territory, declared that double jeopardy did not apply, and set a date for a retrial.

Collateral estoppel

issue preclusioncollaterally estoppedmutuality of estoppel
In 1970 in Ashe v. Swenson, the United States Supreme Court applied it to double jeopardy to limit prosecution for crimes committed at the same time.