Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Double Jeopardy

Double jeopardy is a fundamental legal doctrine that prohibits the government from prosecuting a person more than once for the same criminal offense, thereby safeguarding individuals from repeated trials and potential multiple punishments for a single act.^[1]^[2] This principle is explicitly codified in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."^[3] Adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the clause reflects a deliberate constraint on governmental authority to ensure finality in criminal proceedings and prevent abuse through endless retrials.^[4] The doctrine traces its roots to ancient civilizations, including Greek and Roman law, where the maxim non bis in idem ("not twice for the same thing") barred repeated prosecutions to uphold fairness and resource efficiency in adjudication.^[5] Incorporated into English common law by the 12th century—evident in conflicts such as that between King Henry II and Thomas Becket—it evolved to protect against the Crown's capricious use of judicial power, influencing the framers of the U.S. Constitution who sought to embed such liberties against federal overreach.^[5] In practice, double jeopardy attaches once a jury is empaneled or, in bench trials, when the first witness is sworn, triggering protections against reprosecution following an acquittal, conviction, or certain mistrials.^[6] While the clause provides robust defenses—barring retrials after acquittals even if new evidence emerges and prohibiting cumulative punishments from a single proceeding—its application includes delineated exceptions to balance societal interests in justice.^[2] These encompass retrials after "manifest necessity" mistrials (such as hung juries), appeals by defendants leading to reversals, and prosecutions by separate sovereigns like federal and state governments for the same conduct under distinct laws, as affirmed in cases interpreting the clause's scope.^[6]^[1] Extended to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the principle underscores a commitment to individual autonomy over prosecutorial persistence, though debates persist on its rigidity amid evolving evidentiary standards.^[7]

Legal Doctrine

Definition and Purpose

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."^[8] This provision prohibits the government from initiating successive criminal prosecutions or imposing multiple punishments for the same offense, attaching jeopardy typically when a jury is empaneled or, in bench trials, when the first witness is sworn.^[1]^[2] The clause's core definition encompasses protections against retrying a defendant after an acquittal, reconviction after a prior conviction, and cumulative punishments beyond legislative intent for a single offense.^[1] Rooted in English common law traditions that barred vexatious reapplications of sovereign power, the doctrine originally emphasized safeguards in capital cases but has expanded to all criminal proceedings.^[2] As articulated by the Supreme Court, the Double Jeopardy Clause serves three primary purposes: first, to shield against a second prosecution following acquittal, preserving the finality of a jury's determination of innocence; second, to bar reprosecution after conviction, preventing the government from seeking a more favorable outcome through repeated trials; and third, to prohibit multiple punishments for the same offense, ensuring penalties align with statutory limits rather than prosecutorial discretion.^[9]^[10] These aims promote efficiency in the justice system, mitigate the emotional and financial toll of protracted litigation on defendants, and constrain arbitrary governmental overreach.^[2]^[1]

Historical Origins

The principle against double jeopardy has ancient antecedents, with early manifestations in Mesopotamian law. The Code of Hammurabi, dating to approximately the 18th century BCE, included Law 5, which barred judges from reversing prior judgments, embodying a rudimentary form of finality in adjudication akin to res judicata.^[11] In ancient Greece, orator Demosthenes referenced in 355 BCE that Athenian laws prohibited retrying the same matter, reflecting a societal aversion to repeated prosecutions.^[11] Roman law formalized protections against repeated vexation for the same cause through maxims such as non bis in idem, articulated by Cicero in the late Roman Republic, which prohibited twice placing a person in the same legal jeopardy.^[11] This evolved into codified prohibitions in the Digest of Justinian (533 CE), which explicitly barred re-accusation following an acquittal or conviction, influencing subsequent civil law traditions.^[11] The Latin maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa—"no one should be vexed twice for the same cause"—emerged from these Roman administrative practices, providing a foundational rationale against prosecutorial harassment.^[12] In medieval Europe, the doctrine appeared in Spanish law with the Fuero Real of 1255, which recognized bars to retrial for the same offense.^[13] English common law incorporated similar protections incrementally from the 12th century, with records from common law courts enabling precedent development; a specific bar traces to the 1164 Constitutions of Clarendon, arising from the dispute between King Henry II and Thomas Becket, where canon law invoked nemo bis in idipsum to shield clerics from secular retrial.^[11] By around 1250, the principle was evident in English pleading practices, allowing defendants to invoke prior jeopardy as a bar.^[13] In the late 16th century, pleas of autrefois acquit (previously acquitted) and autrefois convict (previously convicted) were judicially recognized, as in Vaux’s Case (1591) and Wrote v. Wigges (1591), solidifying the rule against second prosecutions for the same offense.^[11] Post-Restoration in 1660, cases like R v. Read affirmed no new trials after acquittal, embedding the doctrine as a core common law safeguard by the time of William Blackstone's commentaries in the 18th century.^[11]^[13]

Incorporation into U.S. Law

The Double Jeopardy Clause entered U.S. law as part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, which provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."^[8] This provision drew from English common law traditions and early state constitutions, such as New Hampshire's 1784 declaration that no subject shall be tried twice for the same offense after acquittal or conviction.^[14] Initially, the clause constrained only federal prosecutions, reflecting the original understanding that the Bill of Rights limited the national government rather than the states.^[15] Prior to 1969, the clause did not fully bind state courts, as the Supreme Court in Palko v. Connecticut (1937) determined that protections against double jeopardy—such as retrying a defendant after acquittal—were not among the "fundamental" rights incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Under Palko, state practices violating federal double jeopardy standards were permissible unless they imposed a "hardship so acute and shocking that our polity will not endure it."^[16] This selective approach allowed states greater latitude, for instance, in permitting appeals from acquittals or successive prosecutions in certain scenarios, diverging from stricter federal constraints.^[17] The full incorporation of the Double Jeopardy Clause against the states occurred in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), a unanimous decision authored by Justice Brennan.^[18] In Benton, the petitioner had been convicted of burglary and larceny in Maryland state court, but the larceny conviction was vacated on appeal due to a defective grand jury indictment; a retrial on larceny resulted in a harsher sentence, prompting a double jeopardy claim.^[16] The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, overruling Palko to the extent it excluded double jeopardy from fundamental rights.^[18] This ruling aligned state protections with federal ones, prohibiting states from retrying defendants after acquittal, imposing multiple punishments for the same offense without legislative authorization, or appealing certain acquittals, thereby ensuring uniform application across jurisdictions.^[19] Post-Benton, violations of double jeopardy in state proceedings became cognizable as federal constitutional errors, subject to Supreme Court review.^[20]

Core Elements of Protection

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits both successive prosecutions for the same offense and the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense.^[2]^[1] These protections apply once jeopardy attaches, marking the point at which the government exposes the defendant to the actual risk of conviction and punishment.^[1]^[2] Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in, signifying the defendant's commitment to the jury's judgment.^[1]^[21] In a bench trial, it attaches when the first witness is sworn or when the court begins to hear evidence.^[1]^[21] For guilty pleas, attachment occurs upon the court's acceptance of the plea, as this constitutes a determination of guilt.^[22] Jeopardy does not attach prior to these points, such as during pretrial proceedings or erroneous acquittals based on legal defects.^[1]^[2] The clause bars retrial for the "same offense," defined under the Blockburger test from Blockburger v. United States (284 U.S. 299, 1932), which examines whether each statutory violation requires proof of a fact that the other does not.^[1] If the offenses are deemed the same under this test, successive prosecution is prohibited following an acquittal, conviction, or certain mistrials where jeopardy has terminated.^[1]^[2] An acquittal, even if based on an erroneous evidentiary ruling, conclusively bars reprosecution, as does a conviction unless the defendant successfully appeals and obtains a reversal.^[2] For mistrials, retrial is permitted only upon a showing of "manifest necessity," such as a hung jury or juror misconduct, to avoid undermining the clause's finality principle.^[1]^[2] Regarding multiple punishments, the clause forbids cumulative penalties in a single proceeding unless clearly authorized by legislative intent, as determined by examining the statutes' provisions and historical practices.^[2]^[1] Civil sanctions may implicate double jeopardy if they are punitive in nature and disproportionate to remedial goals, though purely remedial forfeitures or taxes typically do not.^[2] These elements collectively ensure that once a defendant has faced the hazards of trial and judgment on an offense, the state cannot renew its efforts absent narrow exceptions.^[1]^[2]

Exceptions and Limitations

The Double Jeopardy Clause permits retrial following a mistrial when declared due to "manifest necessity," such as a hung jury or other circumstances where continuing the trial would be impossible or unfair to either party.^[23] In United States v. Perez (1824), the U.S. Supreme Court established that a deadlocked jury constitutes manifest necessity, allowing reprosecution without violating the Clause, as no verdict on the merits has been reached. Similarly, if the defendant requests or consents to the mistrial, retrial is generally not barred, though prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial may prohibit it, as clarified in Oregon v. Kennedy (1982). These limitations ensure finality only attaches to conclusive outcomes, preventing abuse while allowing resolution of unresolved cases. Retrial is also authorized after a conviction is reversed on appeal, unless the reversal stems from insufficient evidence equivalent to an acquittal.^[24] The Supreme Court in United States v. Ball (1896) held that appellate reversal for trial errors permits reprosecution to afford the government a full opportunity to convict, distinguishing this from bar on retrying after acquittal.^[25] However, if an appellate court deems evidence legally insufficient, as in Burks v. United States (1978), the reversal operates as an acquittal, barring retrial to avoid undermining the Clause's protection against repeated exposure to conviction risk. The Clause does not extend to non-jeopardy-attaching proceedings, such as grand jury indictments or civil forfeiture actions, even if related to the same conduct.^[1] Jeopardy attaches only upon empanelment and swearing of the jury in jury trials or the first witness in bench trials, per Downum v. United States (1963), limiting protections to full adversarial criminal trials. Additionally, successive punishments imposed in a single proceeding do not implicate double jeopardy if authorized by statute, as affirmed in Albernaz v. United States (1981), distinguishing reprosecution from cumulative sanctions. These boundaries reflect the Clause's focus on shielding against governmental oppression through repeated trials rather than absolute finality in all contexts.

Dual Sovereignty Exception

The dual sovereignty doctrine holds that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not bar successive prosecutions for the same conduct by governments that derive their authority from distinct sources of power, such as the federal government and a state, or two separate states.^[26] Under this principle, each sovereign defines its own offenses against its peace and dignity, such that a single act can violate the laws of multiple jurisdictions without constituting the "same offence" for constitutional purposes.^[27] The doctrine reflects the structure of American federalism, where the United States and the states retain independent prosecutorial authority, allowing each to vindicate its distinct interests even if the underlying facts overlap.^[28] The doctrine's origins trace to United States v. Lanza (1922), where the Supreme Court upheld federal prosecution for liquor possession following a state conviction under Prohibition-era laws, reasoning that "an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each."^[27]^[29] This established that dual prosecutions do not offend double jeopardy because the federal and state governments operate as separate sovereigns with concurrent jurisdiction over certain conduct.^[26] The Court later applied the principle in Bartkus v. Illinois (1959), affirming a state conviction for bank robbery after federal acquittal on the same facts, emphasizing that the Clause prohibits only one sovereign from retrying an individual, not independent action by another.^[30] In Heath v. Alabama (1985), the doctrine extended explicitly to successive prosecutions between two states, upholding convictions in both Georgia and Alabama for the same contract killing where the victim was abducted across state lines.^[31] The Court clarified that states qualify as separate sovereigns when their prosecutions rest on independent substantive elements, even if factually identical, as each state's authority derives from its own reserved powers under the Constitution.^[32] This ruling reinforced that the Clause's protections are sovereign-specific, not a blanket bar against all reprosecution for related conduct.^[31] The Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine's vitality in Gamble v. United States (2019), rejecting a challenge to overturn it and permitting federal prosecution for unlawful firearm possession after a state conviction for the same incident.^[33] Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Gorsuch described dual sovereignty not as an exception but as inherent to the Clause's original meaning, which targets reprosecution by the same sovereign to prevent abuse of power within a single jurisdiction.^[28] The decision noted historical practice at the Founding, where colonies exercised concurrent authority without double jeopardy constraints, and practical necessities of federalism, such as enabling federal enforcement of civil rights or commerce regulations where states might fail to act.^[34] Dissenters, led by Justice Ginsburg, argued the doctrine undermines the Clause's core aim of finality and risks prosecutorial overreach, but the majority prioritized stare decisis and structural constitutional design.^[35]

Criticisms and Policy Debates

The dual sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause has drawn significant criticism for permitting successive prosecutions by federal and state authorities for the same underlying conduct, thereby undermining the Clause's protections against multiple trials and punishments. Critics contend that this doctrine prioritizes governmental interests over individual rights, allowing what amounts to coordinated "piling on" by prosecutors, as seen in high-profile cases like the federal civil rights prosecution of officers following state acquittals in the Rodney King beating in 1992.^[36]^[37] Law review analyses describe it as the most contentious exception, arguing it deviates from the Clause's original intent to shield defendants from repeated jeopardy rather than to safeguard sovereign prerogatives.^[38] Dissenting justices have reinforced these critiques; in Bartkus v. Illinois (1959), Justice Hugo Black argued that the Fifth Amendment embodies a comprehensive policy against reprosecution for the same act, irrespective of jurisdictional lines, rejecting dual sovereignty as a historical fiction inconsistent with the Clause's text.^[39] Similarly, in Gamble v. United States (2019), Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented, asserting that the doctrine contravenes the Clause's original public meaning by enabling duplicative sovereignty-driven prosecutions and eroding finality in criminal judgments. These views highlight concerns over prosecutorial abuse, particularly in overlapping jurisdictions like civil rights violations or drug offenses, where federal intervention post-state acquittal can impose harsher penalties. Policy debates center on reforming or abolishing the exception to prevent such overlaps, with advocates like the ACLU calling for closure of this "loophole" to align with the Clause's core aim of limiting government power.^[40] Proposals include statutory limits on successive prosecutions, such as expanded use of the Department of Justice's Petite Policy, which discourages federal action absent substantial federal interests, though enforcement remains discretionary. Despite reaffirmation in Gamble, ongoing litigation—such as the 2025 Supreme Court review of whether federal firearm enhancements violate double jeopardy after state convictions—signals persistent tension, with critics urging reevaluation to curb potential for unequal application across defendants.^[41] No constitutional amendment has materialized, reflecting the doctrine's entrenchment amid competing priorities of federalism and individual protections.

Notable Applications and Cases

Early U.S. Supreme Court Precedents

The U.S. Supreme Court's initial engagements with the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment addressed the boundaries of retrial following incomplete or flawed proceedings, emphasizing protections against successive prosecutions while permitting exceptions grounded in common-law principles of necessity and finality. These precedents, rendered in the 19th century, interpreted "jeopardy" as attaching once a jury is empaneled and sworn, but terminating differently based on the outcome—absolutely upon acquittal, but provisionally upon conviction subject to appellate review.^[15]^[42] In United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1824), the Court confronted the first major challenge under the clause, involving a capital trial where the jury failed to reach a verdict after extended deliberation and was discharged without the defendant's consent. Justice Story, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that such a discharge constituted no bar to retrial, as the impasse represented a "manifest necessity" akin to historical common-law exceptions where further proceedings would be futile or unjust.^[42] This decision established the doctrine that mistrials due to genuine jury deadlock do not invoke double jeopardy, provided the trial judge exercises sound discretion, thereby prioritizing the public interest in justice over absolute finality in non-verdict scenarios.^[43] Nearly five decades later, Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. 163 (1873), expanded the clause's scope to encompass protections against multiple punishments for the same offense, beyond mere successive trials. The petitioner, convicted of destroying government property and sentenced to a fine (which he paid in full), secured reversal of the conviction on habeas review due to an erroneous statutory interpretation allowing imprisonment instead. Upon resentencing to one year in prison under the corrected law, the Court, per Justice Miller, held this violated double jeopardy, as the partial execution of the original sentence (via payment) rendered any additional punishment duplicative and punitive in intent.^[44] The ruling underscored that the clause safeguards not only against repeated exposure to conviction but also against enhanced penalties after jeopardy has once risked resolution through punishment.^[45] Toward the century's close, United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1896), refined the distinction between acquittals and convictions in appellate contexts. Three defendants were indicted for murder on the high seas; one (Ball) was acquitted, while the others were convicted but secured reversal on writ of error due to a defective indictment lacking venue specification. The government then sought to retry all three under a corrected indictment. The Court, per Justice Harlan, upheld retrial for the originally convicted defendants, reasoning that a reversed conviction does not terminate jeopardy, as no valid final judgment exists, but barred retrying Ball, whose acquittal—irrespective of the indictment flaw—conclusively ended proceedings against him.^[25] This precedent affirmed that the clause prohibits appellate review of acquittals to avoid second trials, while permitting reprosecution after conviction reversals to correct errors without undermining the finality of exonerations.^[46] Collectively, these early rulings delineated the clause's core as embodying common-law pleas against autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, and pardon, while accommodating practical necessities like hung juries and appellate corrections, without yet addressing state incorporation or dual sovereignty—issues that emerged later.^[15] They reflected a cautious federal jurisprudence, given the clause's initial application solely to federal prosecutions, and set precedents enduring into modern doctrine.

Civil Rights Era Cases

During the Civil Rights Era, the Double Jeopardy Clause intersected with efforts to prosecute violations of African Americans' rights, particularly through the dual sovereignty doctrine, which permitted federal authorities to pursue charges after state courts acquitted or failed to convict defendants for the same underlying conduct. This approach addressed systemic failures in Southern state justice systems, where all-white juries often exonerated white perpetrators of lynchings, beatings, and murders targeting civil rights activists. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine's viability in companion cases decided on March 30, 1959: in Bartkus v. Illinois, the Court upheld a state robbery conviction following a federal acquittal for the identical interstate bank robbery, ruling that the Fifth Amendment's protections do not bar successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns despite investigative cooperation between federal and state officials.^[30]^[47] Similarly, in Abbate v. United States, the Court sustained a federal conspiracy conviction after a state conviction for the same underlying acts of assaulting a telephone company worker during a labor dispute, emphasizing that dual sovereignty preserves each government's independent interest in enforcing its laws.^[48] These precedents enabled federal civil rights prosecutions without double jeopardy barriers, as exemplified in the 1964 murders of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner in Mississippi—known as the "Mississippi Burning" case. After local authorities released suspects without charges and a state coroner's inquest ruled the deaths justifiable homicide, the FBI investigated under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, leading to federal indictments of 18 Ku Klux Klan members, including Sheriff Lawrence Rainey and Deputy Cecil Price, for conspiracy to deprive the victims of due process under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.^[49] Defendants raised double jeopardy challenges based on prior state interactions, but courts rejected them under the dual sovereignty exception, resulting in convictions of seven defendants (including Price) on October 20, 1967, with sentences ranging from 3 to 10 years; the Supreme Court in United States v. Price (1966) addressed related procedural issues but upheld the framework allowing such federal actions by reinstating the indictment after a lower court's dismissal on timeliness grounds.^[50]^[51] A pivotal development came in Benton v. Maryland on June 23, 1969, when the Supreme Court incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, overruling Palko v. Connecticut (1937) and rejecting the prior "fundamental rights" test for selective incorporation.^[18]^[16] In Benton, the Court vacated a state larceny conviction obtained after an initial jury acquitted on burglary but convicted on larceny, holding that retrying the acquitted offense violated double jeopardy protections now applicable to state proceedings. While the case arose from a 1965 Maryland home invasion, incorporation had immediate relevance to civil rights litigation by curbing state practices of multiple prosecutions or appeals that could harass defendants challenging segregation or voter suppression, ensuring uniform safeguards in jurisdictions handling the era's frontline cases.^[18] This shift complemented federal overrides under dual sovereignty, fortifying protections without undermining civil rights enforcement.

Contemporary Cases and Developments

In Gamble v. United States (2019), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the dual-sovereignty doctrine by a 7-2 vote, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions by state and federal authorities for the same conduct, as each sovereign defines and punishes offenses independently.^[28] This decision rejected arguments to overrule the exception, emphasizing historical precedent and the Clause's original public meaning focused on single-sovereign harassment rather than inter-sovereign overlap.^[52] The doctrine's application has featured prominently in civil rights prosecutions following high-profile incidents. In the 2020 killing of Ahmaud Arbery, three white men—Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William Bryan—were convicted in Georgia state court of murder in November 2021 and sentenced to life imprisonment.^[53] They faced subsequent federal trials for interference with Arbery's federally protected rights by deadly force motivated by race, resulting in convictions in February 2022 and additional life sentences without parole in August 2022, upheld as permissible under dual sovereignty.^[53] Similarly, former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, convicted in Minnesota state court in April 2021 of second-degree murder and other charges in the death of George Floyd, pleaded guilty in December 2021 to federal civil rights violations for depriving Floyd of liberty without due process, receiving a concurrent 21-year sentence in July 2022.^[54] These cases illustrate how federal authorities leverage overlapping jurisdiction to address perceived deficiencies in state outcomes, particularly in interracial violence, without triggering double jeopardy constraints.^[55] In McElrath v. Georgia (2024), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled 9-0 that a jury's "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict on malice murder constitutes an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause, barring retrial on the lesser-included offense of felony murder despite the defendant's separate conviction on the latter.^[56] The decision clarified that the Clause attaches finality to any resolution where the government has fully presented its case and the factfinder has determined elements of the offense in the defendant's favor, preventing successive state prosecutions even within the same sovereign.^[57] Ongoing litigation addresses multiple punishments within a single sovereign. In Barrett v. United States, argued before the Supreme Court on October 7, 2025, the defendant challenges consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(j) for using a firearm in a crime of violence, arguing they constitute punishment twice for the same offense in violation of double jeopardy principles.^[41] This case tests the "same-elements" test from Blockburger v. United States (1932) in the context of stacked federal enhancements, potentially refining limits on legislative overreach in sentencing.^[58] No major legislative reforms to the Clause have occurred federally since the 1990s, though debates persist over narrowing dual sovereignty amid perceptions of prosecutorial opportunism in politically charged cases.^[59]

International and Comparative Perspectives

Common Law Traditions Outside the U.S.

In English common law, the double jeopardy principle originated as a safeguard against repeated prosecutions for the same offence, rooted in the ancient maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no one should be vexed twice for the same cause), which prohibited retrying an acquitted defendant to preserve finality and prevent abuse of process.^[60] This rule applied strictly to acquittals and convictions, barring subsequent trials on identical facts, though exceptions existed for appeals or distinct offences.^[61] England and Wales reformed the doctrine through the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which took effect on April 4, 2005, permitting retrials for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape, and certain other violent or sexual crimes if "new and compelling evidence" emerges post-acquittal.^[62] The reform, driven by high-profile cases like the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence where initial acquittals hindered justice, allows the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for quashing an acquittal upon referral by the Director, followed by a new trial if approved.^[63] By 2023, this provision had been invoked in limited instances, with five successful retrial applications since inception, emphasizing safeguards like requiring the new evidence to be highly probative and unavailable at the original trial.^[60] In Australia, double jeopardy remains a core common law principle, prohibiting retrial for the same offence after acquittal or conviction, as affirmed by the High Court, but federal and state jurisdictions have introduced exceptions modeled on the UK approach.^[64] New South Wales enacted the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Act 2006, enabling retrials for serious indictable offences (punishable by at least 15-25 years imprisonment) upon fresh and compelling evidence, a framework echoed in Victoria (2007), Western Australia (2011), and other states.^[64] These laws require judicial oversight, such as Court of Appeal authorization, to balance protection against finality with public interest in rectifying miscarriages.^[65] Canada enshrines the protection in section 11(h) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), guaranteeing that a finally acquitted person "shall not be tried for it again and shall not be punished for it," extending common law res judicata to bar multiple convictions or punishments for the same delict.^[66] Unlike the UK and Australia, Canada maintains a stricter stance without statutory exceptions for new evidence in post-acquittal retrials, though limited avenues exist via Crown appeals against acquittals or for jurisdictional issues; the Supreme Court has upheld this to prevent state harassment while allowing remedies for withheld evidence pre-trial.^[67] This approach reflects a constitutional commitment to finality, with over 40 years of jurisprudence reinforcing its application to identical facts and offences.^[66]

Civil Law Systems

In civil law systems, the principle of ne bis in idem—Latin for "not twice for the same"—prohibits prosecuting or punishing an individual twice for the same offense, serving as the doctrinal equivalent to double jeopardy and tracing its origins to Roman law prohibitions against repeated actions on identical causes. This safeguard is codified in national legal frameworks across jurisdictions such as France, Germany, and Italy, where it typically bars retrial after a final acquittal or conviction unless exceptional circumstances like newly discovered evidence or procedural irregularities justify reopening proceedings. Unlike some common law traditions, civil law implementations often emphasize factual identity over strict legal classification, allowing flexibility in cases where subsequent charges arise from the same acts but under different statutory provisions, provided no final judgment has barred them.^[68] Within the European Union, where many civil law systems operate, ne bis in idem is reinforced by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which precludes retrying or repunishing for an offense already finally adjudicated within the Union, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to prioritize effective enforcement while limiting duplication. CJEU jurisprudence, such as in cases involving cross-border competition infringements, has clarified that the principle applies transnationally but permits parallel proceedings if they address distinct aspects of the same conduct, balancing mutual recognition with prosecutorial autonomy. This EU-level harmonization influences domestic applications, as seen in France, where the Cour de Cassation has applied it to prevent dual criminal and administrative sanctions for market abuse unless the latter lacks punitive character, aligning with CJEU standards on "criminal nature" under the Engel criteria.^[69]^[70]^[71] In Germany, the principle is enshrined in Article 103(3) of the Basic Law, prohibiting multiple prosecutions for the same act after final judgment, with the Federal Constitutional Court upholding exceptions only for absolute nullity due to grave procedural flaws, as in retrials under § 359 No. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for new exonerating evidence. Italian law embeds ne bis in idem in Article 649 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which forbids subsequent criminal trials after a definitive sentence, though the Constitutional Court has ruled that cumulative administrative and criminal penalties violate it if both pursue punitive aims for identical facts, prompting reforms to prioritize criminal proceedings. These national variations reflect a shared commitment to finality in judgments while accommodating inquisitorial processes that permit investigative reopenings, contrasting with adversarial systems' attachment to jury verdicts.^[72]^[73]

Reforms and Exceptions in Other Countries

In the United Kingdom, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced exceptions to the double jeopardy rule in England and Wales, permitting retrials for serious offenses such as murder, manslaughter, rape, and certain other grave crimes when "new and compelling evidence" emerges that was not available during the original trial and meets criteria set by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Court of Appeal.^[74] This reform, effective from 2005, requires approval from the Court of Appeal, which assesses whether the evidence raises a reasonable prospect of conviction and serves the interests of justice; as of 2023, it has been applied in a limited number of cases, including the 2011 retrial of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence.^[74] Similar provisions extend to Northern Ireland via the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004, while Scotland maintains a stricter adherence without statutory retrial exceptions, relying instead on provisions for setting aside convictions based on miscarriage of justice under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.^[60] Australia has implemented state-specific reforms eroding the absolute double jeopardy protection, primarily for serious indictable offenses. In New South Wales, the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (amended in 2006) allows retrials for homicide and other major crimes if fresh or compelling evidence is discovered post-acquittal.^[65] Queensland expanded its exceptions in March 2024 through the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment Act, adding 10 offenses including manslaughter, attempted murder, rape, incest, and unlawful striking causing death to the existing list for murder and certain sexual assaults, enabling retrials upon application to the Court of Appeal when new evidence is deemed compelling and in the public interest.^[75] ^[76] Other jurisdictions like Victoria (via the Crimes (Homicide) Act 2005 and subsequent amendments) and Western Australia follow comparable models limited to homicide cases with fresh evidence, reflecting a trend toward balancing finality with accountability for heinous crimes, though federal law upholds the principle without exceptions.^[77] In Canada, the double jeopardy protection under section 11(h) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms remains largely intact without statutory reforms allowing retrials based on new evidence, prohibiting reprosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction unless the accused successfully appeals and secures a new trial.^[78] Academic proposals have advocated adopting UK-style exceptions for serious crimes, but no legislative changes have been enacted as of 2025, preserving the traditional res judicata bar to prevent state overreach.^[79] European civil law systems generally adhere strictly to the ne bis in idem principle under Article 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, barring retrial or punishment for the same offense post-final judgment, with limited exceptions only for procedural irregularities or new facts invalidating the original verdict in domestic codes like France's Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 622-1).^[70] No widespread reforms akin to those in common law jurisdictions have occurred, though cross-border enforcement via the European Arrest Warrant can yield ne bis in idem refusals if prior proceedings in one EU state preclude action in another, as affirmed by the Court of Justice of the EU in cases like Spasic (2014).^[68]

Cultural and Media Representations

Film and Television Adaptations

The 1999 thriller film Double Jeopardy, directed by Bruce Beresford and starring Ashley Judd as Libby Parsons, prominently features a dramatized interpretation of the double jeopardy clause. In the plot, Parsons is convicted of murdering her husband, who staged his death and fled with their son; upon release from prison, she pursues him under the misconception that the clause shields her from prosecution for killing him, as she was already tried for his "murder." The film grossed over $116 million worldwide against a $50 million budget and received mixed reviews, with Roger Ebert praising its dramatic tension but critiquing contrived elements. However, legal experts have widely debunked the film's central premise as inaccurate: the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy protection bars retrial for the same offense after acquittal or conviction, but does not permit new crimes, such as premeditated murder in a different jurisdiction or against a living person presumed dead.^[80]^[81]^[82] In television, depictions often highlight real-world challenges to double jeopardy laws rather than fictional exploits. The 2025 ITV miniseries I Fought the Law, starring Sheridan Smith as Ann Ming, chronicles Ming's 15-year campaign following the 1989 murder of her daughter Julie Hogg in the UK, where the killer's acquittal invoked the ancient double jeopardy rule barring retrial. The series portrays Ming's advocacy, which culminated in the UK's 2005 Criminal Justice Act amendments allowing retrials on compelling new evidence, leading to the killer's 2006 conviction. This narrative draws from Ming's memoir and emphasizes procedural reforms over sensationalism. Complementing it, the BBC's 2019 documentary Double Jeopardy: Catching Britain's Killers examines the same case, underscoring evidentiary hurdles and policy shifts in common law systems.^[83]^[84]^[85] Procedural dramas like Law & Order have occasionally invoked the clause in episodes, such as Season 10's "Gunshow" (2000), where prosecutors navigate double jeopardy limits in a retrial attempt after new witness testimony, reflecting U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Ball v. United States (1896) on separate offenses. These portrayals generally adhere more closely to legal realities than Double Jeopardy, illustrating exceptions for distinct charges or sovereigns (e.g., state vs. federal prosecutions), though they simplify complex appellate processes for dramatic pacing.

Literature and Other Media

In legal thrillers, the double jeopardy clause often serves as a pivotal plot device, highlighting tensions between justice, finality, and prosecutorial overreach. William Bernhardt's 1995 novel Double Jeopardy centers on defense attorney Travis Byrne, a former police officer, who takes over a case after the original lawyer vanishes; the story revolves around prosecuting a mobster for a gang rape and attempted murder following an earlier acquittal, forcing exploration of retrial prohibitions and evidentiary challenges.^[86]^[87] More recent works continue this tradition. In Stephen Penner's 2024 Double Jeopardy, the fourth installment of the Rain City Legal series, attorney Finlay Armstrong investigates the death of a young man in county jail—officially ruled a heart attack but suspected as murder—amid debates over charging corrections officers and navigating double jeopardy barriers to accountability for custody-related offenses.^[88]^[89] Sheldon Siegel's Double Jeopardy (2021), part of the Mike Daley/Rosie Fernandez series, depicts San Francisco lawyers confronting a convoluted homicide investigation where prior proceedings invoke the clause, blending procedural intricacies with personal stakes.^[90] Literary analyses have also employed the term metaphorically. Virginia B. Morris's 1991 study Double Jeopardy: Women Who Kill in Victorian Fiction examines portrayals of female killers in 19th-century British novels, such as those by Wilkie Collins and Mary Elizabeth Braddon, arguing that fictional women faced compounded legal and social penalties analogous to dual jeopardy—escaping male dominance through violence only to encounter harsher scrutiny than male counterparts.^[91]^[92] Beyond novels, the theme appears sparingly in other media. Fletcher Pratt's 1952 science fiction novel Double Jeopardy uses the title to frame mysteries involving a matter-duplication technology that creates identical suspects, echoing jeopardy concerns in a speculative context rather than strictly legal ones. Such representations underscore the clause's dramatic potential but rarely delve into its doctrinal nuances without legal expertise driving the narrative.

References

[1]
double jeopardy | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Double jeopardy, protected by the Fifth Amendment, prevents being prosecuted twice for the same crime, including when tried as a juvenile and then as an adult.
[2]
Amdt5.3.1 Overview of Double Jeopardy Clause
The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents being tried twice for the same crime, protecting against "jeopardy of life or limb" for any defined crime, and generally ...
[3]
Fifth Amendment | U.S. Constitution - Law.Cornell.Edu
In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination. It also ...Double Jeopardy · Fifth Amendment · Sixth Amendment · Due Process
[4]
Explaining the Double Jeopardy Clause - New Jersey State Bar ...
Aug 22, 2025 · The Fifth Amendment states in part, “…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” This is ...<|separator|>
[5]
The Concept of Double Jeopardy: Background and History - FindLaw
Oct 21, 2023 · Double jeopardy is a principle dating back to ancient Greece and Rome, where laws prevented trying someone twice for the same crime.
[6]
Double Jeopardy :: Fifth Amendment -- Rights of Persons - Justia Law
Double jeopardy means no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.
[7]
Double Jeopardy - FindLaw
Aug 25, 2023 · Double jeopardy, protected by the Fifth Amendment, prevents a defendant from being prosecuted more than once for the same offense.<|separator|>
[8]
U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Library of Congress
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.Browse · Sixth Amendment · Fourth Amendment
[9]
Whalen v. United States | 445 U.S. 684 (1980)
I In recent years we have stated in the manner of "black letter law" that the Double Jeopardy Clause serves three primary purposes. First, it protects against a ...
[10]
Thomas W. WHALEN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. | Supreme Court
... double jeopardy area. 30. * In recent years we have stated in the manner of "black letter law" that the Double Jeopardy Clause serves three primary purposes.
[11]
[PDF] A History of the Common Law Double Jeopardy Principle
The double jeopardy principle is a guarantee of individual liberty that has ancient origins. The development of the principle has been incremental, and its.
[12]
Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa - LawBhoomi
Jan 29, 2024 · “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” is a Latin legal maxim that translates to “no one ought to be vexed twice for the same cause.”
[13]
[PDF] Double Jeopardy: Its History, Rationale and Future
DOUBLE JEOPARDY: ITS HISTORY, RATIONALE. AND FUTURE. Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy for life or limb.'.
[14]
Amdt5.3.2 Historical Background on Double Jeopardy Clause
The first bill of rights that expressly adopted a double jeopardy clause was the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. No subject shall be liable to be tried, ...
[15]
Double Jeopardy Clause: Historical Background - Law.Cornell.Edu
The first bill of rights that expressly adopted a double jeopardy clause was the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. “No subject shall be liable to be tried, ...
[16]
John Dalmer BENTON, Petitioner, v. State of MARYLAND.
Federal double jeopardy standards were not applicable against the States. Only when a kind of jeopardy subjected a defendant to 'a hardship so acute and ...
[17]
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2806&context=wmlr
[18]
Benton v. Maryland | 395 U.S. 784 (1969)
We hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and we reverse petitioner's ...
[19]
Benton v. Maryland | Research Starters - EBSCO
The Supreme Court ruled the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy applied to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[20]
[PDF] State Double Jeopardy After Benton v. Maryland - LAW eCommons
The mandate of the Court directs that state conduct violative of fifth amendment standards of double jeopardy must cease.
[21]
When Jeopardy Attaches - Criminal Law - USLegal
The US Supreme Court has held that jeopardy attaches during a jury trial when the jury is sworn. In criminal cases tried by a judge without a jury, also called ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[22]
When Do Double Jeopardy Protections Attach? - FindLaw
Nov 14, 2023 · Jeopardy attaches at specific stages of a trial, such as when the jury is sworn in or when a plea agreement is accepted.
[23]
Reprosecution After Mistrial | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law
The Court ruled that retrial was not barred by double jeopardy. Granting ... mistrial is bound by his decision and may be required to stand for retrial.
[24]
Double Jeopardy & Legal Protections for Criminal Defendants - Justia
Oct 18, 2025 · Appeals and Double Jeopardy. A defendant whose conviction was reversed on appeal may be retried without violating double jeopardy. However ...
[25]
United States v. Ball | 163 U.S. 662 (1896)
Ball filed a plea of former jeopardy and former acquittal, relying upon the trial, the verdict of acquittal, and the order of the court for his discharge ...
[26]
Dual Sovereignty Doctrine | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law
The double jeopardy limitation applies to both federal and state governments. State rules on double jeopardy, with regard to matters such as when jeopardy ...
[27]
United States v. Lanza | 260 U.S. 377 (1922)
Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. It follows ...
[28]
GAMBLE v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court - Law.Cornell.Edu
Under this “dual-sovereignty” doctrine, a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct ...
[29]
UNITED STATES v. LANZA et al. | Supreme Court - Law.Cornell.Edu
Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. It follows that ...
[30]
Bartkus v. Illinois | 359 U.S. 121 (1959)
Petitioner was tried and acquitted in a Federal District Court for violation of 18 USC § 2113, which makes it a crime to rob a federally insured bank.
[31]
Heath v. Alabama | 474 U.S. 82 (1985)
(a) The dual sovereignty doctrine provides that, when a defendant in a single act violates the "peace and dignity" of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of ...
[32]
Heath v. Alabama | Oyez
Oct 9, 1985 · The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of dual sovereignty grants each state the right to try a criminal under the laws of that state.
[33]
Gamble v. United States | 587 U.S. ___ (2019)
Under this “dual-sovereignty” doctrine, a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct ...
[34]
Amdt5.3.3 Dual Sovereignty Doctrine - Constitution Annotated
Gamble, 587 U.S. at 679 . In prior cases, the Supreme Court also recognized practical considerations justifying the dual sovereignty doctrine, noting that ...
[35]
Opinion analysis: Justices uphold "separate sovereigns" doctrine
Jun 17, 2019 · The Constitution's double jeopardy clause guarantees that no one shall “be twice put in jeopardy” “for the same offence.” Today the Supreme ...
[36]
[PDF] Double Jeopardy Law After Rodney King
The dual sovereignty doctrine, where different governments' laws aren't the "same offense," prevents double jeopardy in the Rodney King case, as the first ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[37]
The Limits of Dual Sovereignty - NYU Law Review
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” ...
[38]
[PDF] Why the Supreme Court Refuses to Eliminate the Dual Sovereignty ...
5 'The dual sovereignty doctrine provides that when a defendant in a single act violates the 'peace and dignity' of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, ...<|separator|>
[39]
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&httpsredir=1&article=4193&context=caselrev
[40]
It's Time to Close a Loophole in the Constitution's Double Jeopardy ...
Sep 12, 2018 · The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no one can be tried more than once for the same crime.
[41]
Supreme Court considers double jeopardy with regard to federal ...
Oct 8, 2025 · In Barrett v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the double jeopardy clause prohibits a defendant from receiving a separate ...
[42]
United States v. Perez | 22 U.S. 579 (1824)
The discharge of the jury from giving a verdict in a capital case, without the consent of the prisoner, the jury being unable to agree, is not a bar to a ...Missing: double jeopardy
[43]
JEOPARDY AND MISTRIALS - Office of Justice Programs
IN U.S. V. PEREZ (1824), THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE DISCHARGE OF A HUNG JURY DOES NOT BAR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.
[44]
Ex parte Lange | 85 U.S. 163 (1873)
Edward Lange filed a petition to this Court at a former day, praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the marshal for the Southern District of New York.
[45]
THE CASE OF EX PARTE LANGE (OR HOW THE DOUBLE ...
May 23, 2018 · Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873). Before Lange, the Supreme Court considered the substantive meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause ...
[46]
Reprosecution After Acquittal | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law
In United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1896), three defendants were placed on trial, Ball was acquitted and the other two were convicted, the two appealed and ...
[47]
Bartkus v. Illinois | Oyez
Double jeopardy does not attach after trial and acquittal in federal court followed by trial and conviction for the same crime in state court.
[48]
Abbate v. United States | 359 U.S. 187 (1959)
The Court now affirms their second sentences over the contention that the federal conviction violates the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment. Page ...
[49]
https://fjc.gov/history/spotlight-judicial-history/mississippi-burning
[50]
United States v. Price | 383 U.S. 787 (1966)
The indictments allege assaults by the accused persons upon the rights of the asserted victims to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.Missing: jeopardy | Show results with:jeopardy
[51]
United States v Price et al (US Supreme Court). - Famous Trials
The indictments allege assaults by the accused persons upon the rights of the asserted victims to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.Missing: jeopardy | Show results with:jeopardy
[52]
Gamble v. United States | Oyez
Dec 6, 2018 · The Court first clarified that the dual-sovereignty doctrine is not an exception to the right against double jeopardy, but a corollary to the ...
[53]
Federal Judge Sentences Three Men Convicted of Racially ...
Aug 8, 2022 · Federal Judge Sentences Three Men Convicted of Racially Motivated Hate Crimes in Connection with the Killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia.
[54]
Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty in ...
Dec 15, 2021 · The Justice Department announced today that Derek Chauvin, 45, pleaded guilty in federal court to two violations of a federal civil rights statute.Missing: double jeopardy
[55]
Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin Sentenced to ...
Jul 7, 2022 · On Dec. 15, 2021, Chauvin pleaded guilty in federal court to violating a federal criminal civil rights statute on two separate occasions. First, ...Missing: jeopardy | Show results with:jeopardy
[56]
[PDF] 22-721 McElrath v. Georgia (02/21/2024) - Supreme Court
Feb 21, 2024 · After petitioner Damian McElrath killed his mother, the State of Georgia charged him with three crimes related to her death: malice murder,.
[57]
McElrath v. Georgia | Oyez
Nov 28, 2023 · In 2017, a Georgia jury found Damien McElrath guilty but mentally ill as to felony murder but not guilty by reason of insanity as to malice ...
[58]
Barrett v. United States | Supreme Court Bulletin | US Law
Oct 7, 2025 · The Double Jeopardy Clause is specifically intended to protect defendants against “multiple punishments for the same offense.” Barrett argues ...Missing: 2000-2025 | Show results with:2000-2025
[59]
Barrett v. United States - SCOTUSblog
Issue: Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
[60]
Full article: Double Jeopardy, Autrefois Acquit and the Legal Ethics ...
Apr 16, 2024 · The English law preserved the double jeopardy rule for over 800 years. The rule was partially abolished in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland ...
[61]
Double Jeopardy - Defence-Barrister.co.uk
This page covers the law of double jeopardy, the idea (entrenched in law for many hundreds of years) that once you have been lawfully tried for an offence and a ...
[62]
Criminal Justice Act 2003 - Explanatory Notes - Legislation.gov.uk
This Part of the Act reforms the law relating to double jeopardy, by permitting retrials in respect of a number of very serious offences.Missing: United | Show results with:United
[63]
Double jeopardy law ushered out - BBC NEWS | UK
Apr 3, 2005 · A legal principle which prevents people being tried for the same crime twice has been scrapped in England and Wales. The ban on "double ...
[64]
Double Jeopardy in Criminal Law
Rating 4.9 (568) Nov 17, 2023 · Double jeopardy in criminal law is a legal principle that prevents a person from being tried again for the same offense after they have already been acquitted ...Double Jeopardy in Australia · The Crimes (Appeal and...
[65]
The Rule Against Double Jeopardy | The Public Defenders Home
Nov 15, 2024 · There has been a long-standing principle that a person should not be tried twice for the same offence or for events arising out of and related to that offence.
[66]
Charterpedia - Section 11(h) – Protection Against Double Jeopardy
Jul 14, 2025 · Generally, the principle against double jeopardy prevents double punishment for the same acts, as well as the unwarranted harassment of an ...
[67]
R. v. Van Rassel - SCC Cases - Décisions de la CSC
The double jeopardy concept is a principle of general application which is expressed in the form of more specific rules, such as the plea of autrefois acquit, ...
[68]
Ne bis in idem - Oxford Public International Law
Ne bis in idem, synonymously referred to as the prohibition of double jeopardy, is almost universally included in the domestic laws of States.
[69]
[PDF] 2024-cjeu-case-law-on-ne-bis-in-idem ... - Eurojust - European Union
Feb 13, 2024 · This document provides an overview of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. ('CJEU') regarding the ne bis in idem ...
[70]
Article 50 - Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal ...
No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted ...
[71]
Double jeopardy for market abuse in France - Norton Rose Fulbright
This is a legal doctrine derived from Roman law to the effect that no legal proceedings can be instituted twice in respect of the same cause of action and is ...
[72]
[PDF] Right not to be tried or punished twice (the non bis in idem principle)
Sep 21, 2006 · 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 ...
[73]
The Italian Constitutional Court Decides When the Application of ...
Jul 11, 2022 · The Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional Article 649 of the ICCP, which prohibits a second criminal proceeding for the same conduct.
[74]
Retrial of Serious Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service
Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) reforms the law relating to double jeopardy, by permitting retrials in respect of a number of very ...
[75]
Reforms for double jeopardy and subsequent appeals
Mar 6, 2024 · Queensland Parliament has passed new laws to expand double jeopardy exceptions to 10 additional serious offences including manslaughter, ...
[76]
[PDF] Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Double Jeopardy Exception ...
Feb 1, 2024 · In every other Australian jurisdiction, double jeopardy exceptions encompass serious offences such as rape, attempted murder, and certain ...
[77]
Double jeopardy exceptions to expand - QLS Proctor
Nov 29, 2023 · These include manslaughter, attempted murder, unlawful striking causing death, killing an unborn child, rape, incest and repeated sexual conduct ...<|separator|>
[78]
Double Jeopardy & Can I Be Tried Twice For The Same Crime In ...
Rating 5.0 (109) Mar 22, 2021 · Double jeopardy prevents the courts from trying someone for the same crime on both federal and state legislation. This helps the accused avoid ...
[79]
[PDF] Implementing the “New Double Jeopardy” Exception into Canadian ...
The reform created an exception to double jeopardy, allowing re-prosecution of acquitted individuals. Many of the commonwealth countries starting with Australia ...
[80]
Double Jeopardy movie review & film summary (1999) - Roger Ebert
Rating 2.5/4 · Review by Roger EbertNot a successful thriller, but with some nice dramatic scenes along with the dumb mystery and contrived conclusion.<|separator|>
[81]
How Accurate Is The Movie Double Jeopardy? - Looper
Dec 23, 2020 · Well, charitably, we could describe the movie's level of legal accuracy as "not very accurate." Or, we could not-so-charitably describe it as " ...
[82]
Double Jeopardy Explained: Legal Facts vs. Film Fiction
Double Jeopardy is a legal structure that prevents an accused party from being tried for the same crime more than once in order to protect an accused person.
[83]
Sheridan Smith Starring In ITV Double Jeopardy Drama About Ann ...
May 2, 2024 · Sheridan Smith will starr in an ITV double keopardy drama about Ann Ming written by Jamie Crichton.
[84]
Double Jeopardy - Catching Britain's Killers - BBC
Shocked by the failure to convict her daughter's killer, a mother fights for justice by taking on the legal establishment and overturning an 800-year-old law.Missing: clause | Show results with:clause
[85]
I Fought the Law - Watch Episode - ITVX
1. Episode 1 · The first episode of a drama series about one woman's fight with the double jeopardy law. ; Episode 2 · Ann puts further pressure on the police.Missing: featuring clause
[86]
Double Jeopardy: A Novel of Suspense - William Bernhardt
Handed a rotten case, a lawyer will risk his life to uncover the truth. A young woman is abducted by six men, beaten, raped, and left for dead.
[87]
Double Jeopardy by William Bernhardt | Goodreads
Rating 3.9 (644) That being said, Double Jeopardy is a fast-paced, easy to consume drama ... My lowest score for a Bernhardt book ever, but still better than other authors works.Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
[88]
Double Jeopardy (Rain City Legal, #4) by Stephen Penner
Rating 4.4 (2,947) Apr 28, 2024 · A young man, Michael, dies while in custody at the county jail. The authorities claim it was a heart attack. His mom thinks it was murder.
[89]
Double Jeopardy (A Rain City Legal Thriller) - Books - Amazon.com
30-day returnsMurder. Lies. Corruption. Just another day at the office. A young man, Michael, dies while in custody at the county jail. The authorities claim it was a ...Missing: theme | Show results with:theme
[90]
Double Jeopardy (Mike Daley/Rosie Fernandez Legal Thriller)
30-day returnsAn intricate plot, engaging characters, powerful suspense, and a touch of humor are Sheldon Siegel's hallmarks.Missing: theme | Show results with:theme
[91]
Double Jeopardy: Women Who Kill in Victorian Fiction
Free in-store returnsIn Double Jeopardy, Virginia Morris examines the complex roots of contemporary attitudes toward women who kill by providing a new perspective on violent women ...Missing: theme | Show results with:theme
[92]
Double Jeopardy: Women Who Kill in Victorian Fiction - UKnowledge
In Double Jeopardy, Virginia Morris examines the complex roots of contemporary attitudes toward women who kill by providing a new perspective on violent women ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
[93]
Double Jeopardy (Pratt novel) - Wikipedia
Double Jeopardy is a science fiction novel by Fletcher Pratt. It was first published in hardcover by Doubleday in 1952, and reprinted as a selection of the ...