Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Double jeopardy

Double jeopardy is a fundamental legal principle that bars the government from prosecuting a person more than once for the same offense, safeguarding against repeated trials following an or . This , articulated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb," attaches upon events such as the empaneling of a in a or the first witness in a , thereby terminating the risk of further jeopardy once resolved. Rooted in English traditions dating back to at least the 12th century, with conceptual precursors in ancient codes like the and , the principle evolved to prevent prosecutorial harassment and ensure finality in judgments. In the American context, it was incorporated into state constitutions and the federal to limit governmental power, reflecting concerns over unlimited sovereign authority observed under colonial rule. The clause encompasses protections against both successive prosecutions for the same offense and cumulative punishments from multiple convictions arising from the same act, though courts analyze "sameness" of offenses through tests like Blockburger v. , focusing on distinct statutory elements. Despite its core protections, notable exceptions temper the absolute bar, including retrials after mistrials due to hung juries or procedural errors, prosecutions by separate sovereigns such as state and federal governments under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, and distinctions between criminal and civil proceedings where punitive civil sanctions may follow if not deemed criminal in nature. These carve-outs, upheld in cases like Gamble v. United States (2019), have sparked debates over the clause's scope, balancing individual liberty against public interests in accountability across jurisdictions, yet underscore the principle's enduring role in constraining state power through empirical limits on repeated legal jeopardy.

Definition and Core Principles

Scope of Protection

The of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides three core protections: barring a second prosecution after , prohibiting a second prosecution after conviction, and preventing multiple punishments for the same offense. These safeguards aim to shield individuals from the burdens of repeated criminal trials and excessive penalties for a single criminal act. attaches—and thus triggers these protections—in a when the jury is empaneled and sworn, marking the point at which the is exposed to the risk of conviction. In a , attachment occurs when the first witness is sworn or evidence is introduced, signifying the commencement of the fact-finding process. To determine if offenses are the "same" for double jeopardy purposes, courts apply the Blockburger test, established by the in Blockburger v. United States (1932), which examines whether each offense requires proof of an additional element not contained in the other. Under this rule, separate prosecutions or punishments are permissible if the statutory elements differ sufficiently, even if arising from the same conduct. For instance, charges of and may proceed independently if battery requires proof of physical contact absent from assault. The protection's scope excludes civil proceedings, which pursue remedial rather than punitive goals, allowing parallel or subsequent civil actions despite prior criminal resolutions. It also does not bar prosecutions by separate sovereigns, such as state and federal governments, under the dual sovereignty doctrine, as each represents distinct interests enforceable independently. Exceptions further delimit the clause: retrials are allowed following mistrials declared for manifest necessity, such as a , or at the 's request to avoid prejudice. Additionally, successful appeals by the reversing a permit retrial, as the original proceeding is deemed incomplete. These boundaries ensure the clause targets prosecutorial overreach in criminal contexts while accommodating procedural necessities and jurisdictional distinctions, as affirmed in Supreme Court precedents like United States v. DiFrancesco (1980), which upheld limited appellate review of sentences without violating the clause. The scope thus balances finality with justice, preventing harassment without unduly hampering corrective mechanisms.

Key Elements Triggering Application

Jeopardy attaches—and thus triggers protections—when a is exposed to the actual risk of in a criminal proceeding. In trials by , this occurs upon the empaneling and swearing of the , as established by the U.S. in cases such as Downum v. United States (1963) and Crist v. Bretz (1978), ensuring uniformity across jurisdictions. In bench trials without a , attachment happens when the begins receiving , typically after the first witness is sworn or sworn testimony commences, per rulings like Serfass v. United States (1976). Jeopardy does not attach prior to these points, such as during pretrial motions or guilty pleas rejected by the , absent a clear risk of determination of guilt. For the protection to bar reprosecution, the subsequent proceeding must involve the same offense, assessed under the Blockburger test from Blockburger v. United States (1932): each offense must require proof of a fact that the other does not, allowing separate charges if statutory elements differ sufficiently, even from the same act. This test applies to both successive prosecutions and cumulative punishments, though legislative intent may permit multiples absent double jeopardy violation. Exceptions arise under the separate sovereigns doctrine, permitting federal prosecution after state conviction (or vice versa) for the same conduct, as affirmed in Heath v. Alabama (1985), since distinct sovereigns are not bound by the clause. Application further requires termination of the initial proceeding in a manner invoking the bar: an or equivalent (e.g., directed of ) precludes any retrial, as in United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. (1977); a bars another prosecution for the same offense but allows and retrial if reversed on evidentiary grounds, per Ball v. United States (1896) and Burks v. United States (1978). Mistrials trigger protection only if declared without the defendant's consent and absent manifest necessity, such as or deadlock, to prevent government-induced . These elements collectively ensure the clause safeguards against repeated trials once the state has had a full opportunity to convict.

Distinctions from Civil Proceedings and Res Judicata

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against successive criminal prosecutions or punishments for the same offense but does not extend to civil proceedings, which primarily seek remediation, compensation, or rather than or deterrence. Civil actions impose a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt threshold in criminal trials, allowing outcomes to diverge based on evidentiary burdens and purposes. For instance, was acquitted of murdering and on October 3, 1995, yet a civil found him liable for their wrongful deaths on February 4, 1997, awarding $8.5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in , totaling over $33 million. Civil sanctions may trigger double jeopardy scrutiny if they function as punishment, as determined by their proportionality to actual harm. In United States v. Halper (1989), the Supreme Court held that a $130,000 civil penalty under the False Claims Act for defrauding the government of $585 constituted punishment when overwhelmingly disproportionate to compensatory needs, thereby barring subsequent criminal prosecution. This rationale was refined in Hudson v. United States (1997), where the Court clarified that double jeopardy applies only to inherently criminal proceedings, not civil ones, even if sanctions appear punitive; debarment and monetary penalties against bankers following administrative sanctions were deemed civil, permitting later criminal charges without Clause violation. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, operates distinctly as a civil doctrine barring relitigation of the same between identical parties after a final judgment on the merits by a competent . Rooted in and codified in rules like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), it prioritizes judicial efficiency and repose in private litigation, without the constitutional force of . addresses state power imbalances in criminal contexts to avert , whereas applies horizontally among litigants and does not preclude criminal actions following civil judgments or vice versa; may bind specific issues across proceedings, but claim-wide preclusion does not cross criminal-civil lines absent statutory mandate.

Historical Development

Ancient and Medieval Precursors

In ancient , legal protections against multiple prosecutions for the same offense emerged during the classical period, with orator stating in 355 BCE that the laws forbade retrying the same issue after a verdict had been rendered. Athenian generally prohibited re-prosecution following a trial's conclusion, aiming to shield individuals from repeated harassment by authorities, though loopholes existed, such as initiating charges for false witness testimony to indirectly challenge prior outcomes. These principles reflected an early recognition of procedural finality to maintain social stability in democratic proceedings. Roman law formalized the concept through the maxim non bis in idem ("not twice against the same"), articulated by in the first century BCE, which barred retrying or punishing an individual twice for the same act. This evolved into codified rules in the Digest of Justinian, compiled in 533 CE, which instructed governors not to re-accuse those previously acquitted and encapsulated the idea that "no one ought to be punished twice for the same offense" (nemo debet bis puniri pro uno delicto). Exceptions permitted second accusations if supported by new evidence, distinguishing the principle from absolute modern prohibitions and emphasizing evidentiary thresholds over unqualified finality. Biblical and Hebrew traditions contributed foundational ideas, with interpretations of texts like 1:9—rendered by St. Jerome around 391 as "God judges not twice for the same offence"—providing a theological basis against duplicate punishments. These notions, rooted in ancient Jewish legal practices that limited sequential trials or penalties for identical transgressions, influenced later Western by framing double prosecution as contrary to divine . During the medieval period, canon law preserved and adapted Roman and biblical precursors, explicitly opposing placement of the accused in jeopardy twice for the same offense following the fall of around 476 CE. Ecclesiastical courts invoked phrases like nec enim Deus iudicat bis in idipsum ("for God does not judge twice in the same matter") in disputes such as the 12th-century conflict between and , extending protections particularly to clerics via the established after 1176, which shielded them from secular retrials. This principle, integrated into Gratian's Decretum around 1140 and later councils, prioritized procedural safeguards in spiritual matters but remained limited to church jurisdiction, contrasting with the broader secular applications that would develop in .

English Common Law Foundations

The principle against double jeopardy in English common law developed through the established pleas of autrefois acquit (former acquittal) and autrefois convict (former conviction), which served as absolute bars to prosecution where a defendant had previously been acquitted or convicted for the same offense. These pleas required identity of the offense in both law and fact, preventing retrial even if new evidence emerged, and were invocable at the arraignment stage to halt proceedings entirely. Records indicate the doctrine's presence in common law practices by the mid-13th century, with references in legal treatises tracing protections against repeated jeopardy to at least 1250. Influential jurists reinforced these protections through commentary on procedural safeguards. Sir , in his Institutes of the Laws of England (1628–1644), specified that autrefois acquit applied only to "the same ," underscoring strict factual and legal sameness to avoid expansive interpretations. Sir Hale, writing in Historia Placitorum Coronae (1736), echoed this by limiting the plea to identical offenses, reflecting a commitment to procedural finality over revisiting verdicts. These formulations drew from earlier confrontations, such as the 1164 dispute between King Henry II and , where ecclesiastical assertions against secular retrial for the same act helped solidify resistance to dual judgments. Sir William Blackstone provided the most systematic exposition in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769), declaring the plea of autrefois acquit grounded in the maxim that "no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same ." Blackstone emphasized this as a universal tenet, protecting individuals from repeated exposure to or for identical charges, while distinguishing it from civil remedies or lesser misdemeanors. Absent statutory codification until later reforms, the doctrine relied on judicial recognition, ensuring that once jeopardy attached—typically upon jury empanelment—subsequent prosecutions for the same act were void. This common law framework prioritized safeguards against state overreach, rooted in empirical observations of historical abuses like arbitrary royal prosecutions, rather than abstract equity. By the 18th century, it had evolved to encompass not only acquittals but also convictions barring further punishment, forming a bulwark that influenced subsequent legal systems without permitting exceptions for evidentiary advancements.

Incorporation into Modern Constitutions

The protection against double jeopardy was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, which states: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This clause, drawing from English common law precedents like the pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict, prohibits retrial after acquittal, reconviction after conviction, and multiple punishments for the same offense, though subject to interpretations such as the dual-sovereignty doctrine allowing separate federal and state prosecutions. The provision reflects a foundational commitment to limiting governmental power over individuals, influencing numerous state constitutions that predated or paralleled the federal one, such as New Hampshire's 1784 declaration that "no subject shall be liable to be tried, after an acquittal, for the same crime." In , section 11(h) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the Constitution Act of 1982 proclaimed on April 17, 1982, provides: "Any person charged with an offence has the right, if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again." This applies specifically to proceedings where the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, emphasizing finality in criminal judgments to prevent harassment while allowing limited exceptions under for mistrials or appeals. Germany's (Grundgesetz), adopted on May 23, 1949, incorporates the principle in Article 103(3): "No one may be tried or punished more than once for the same act under the general criminal law" (ne bis in idem). This post-World War II provision underscores a strict bar against reprosecution, reinforced by the Federal Constitutional Court's October 31, 2023, ruling that legislative exceptions permitting retrials for new evidence in serious crimes like violate the clause's core guarantee of and protection from state overreach. The decision nullified aspects of a 2017 reform, affirming the constitutional priority of finality over subsequent evidentiary developments in most cases. Other modern constitutions, such as those in post-colonial or post-authoritarian , often embed similar protections, though phrasing varies; for instance, many draw implicitly from or traditions without identical wording, prioritizing empirical safeguards against repeated prosecutions while accommodating jurisdictional nuances. These incorporations generally aim to individual against prosecutorial , with variations reflecting national legal histories rather than uniform application.

Rationale and Philosophical Underpinnings

First-Principles Protections Against

The protection fundamentally constrains the coercive authority of the state in criminal proceedings, where prosecutors possess vast investigative resources, legal expertise, and institutional incentives to secure convictions, creating an inherent power imbalance with individual defendants. Absent this safeguard, the government could exploit repeated trials to wear down defendants through cumulative financial costs, emotional distress, and , effectively coercing guilty pleas or verdicts via attrition rather than . This principle limits to a single, decisive opportunity, preventing the use of multiple prosecutions as a mechanism of or . Central to this protection is the prevention of , where successive indictments for the same offense impose unnecessary burdens on the accused, including prolonged anxiety and insecurity about potential future jeopardy. The U.S. has emphasized that the clause shields defendants from "embarrassment, expense and ordeal" arising from relitigation, ensuring that an or resolves the matter and allows individuals to rebuild without the shadow of renewed state pursuit. By mandating finality, it counters the risk of prosecutorial manipulation, such as engineering mistrials or dismissing charges only to refile, which could indefinitely extend proceedings against unpopular or resource-limited targets. From a foundational perspective, this clause upholds the presumption of vindication upon , recognizing that the 's failure to prove guilt beyond in one proceeding undermines the legitimacy of retrying the same case absent extraordinary justification. It thereby preserves the integrity of the adversarial process by discouraging strategic prosecutorial errors or withholdings of designed to facilitate appeals or retrials, fostering within the justice system itself. This restraint on power aligns with broader aims to protect personal from arbitrary governmental action, ensuring prosecutions serve justice rather than unchecked authority.

Empirical Evidence on Preventing Harassment and Resource Waste

The double jeopardy protection promotes judicial efficiency by rendering acquittals final, thereby averting the significant financial and temporal burdens of re-litigating resolved criminal matters. Criminal trials impose substantial costs on public resources, with estimates placing the average expense for a trial at around $12,000 per case, though complex prosecutions can surpass $1 million when factoring in , personnel, and operations. In federal courts, for example, only about 0.4% of defendants who proceed to trial were acquitted in 2022, equating to roughly 290 cases out of 71,954 total defendants; without the double jeopardy bar, even a of these acquittals pursued via retrial would duplicate expenditures on presentation, witness , and judicial oversight. State-level jury trials show higher acquittal rates, approximately 18% resulting in not guilty verdicts, further underscoring the potential scale of resource duplication absent finality. This mechanism also mitigates prosecutorial incentives to prolong proceedings through marginal or repetitive charges, as the inability to retry after encourages more selective case preparation and reduces overall caseload strain. Legal scholarship attributes to a role in preserving court bandwidth, noting that permitting appeals of or routine retrials—practices barred in the U.S. but permitted in limited forms elsewhere—would exacerbate backlogs in an already overburdened system where trials constitute only 2-6% of dispositions but consume disproportionate time. Empirical quantification remains indirect, as direct studies linking the clause to caseload reductions are sparse, likely due to the rarity of barred retrials stemming from the doctrine's deterrent effect; however, the high rates (94-97% of cases) partly reflect strategic avoidance of trial risks, including irreversible acquittals. Regarding prevention of harassment, the clause curbs the state's asymmetric advantage in deploying repeated prosecutions to pressure defendants, a dynamic evidenced by historical common law precedents and modern invocations against overzealous retrial attempts. Prosecutors, wielding vast investigative resources, could otherwise exploit minor procedural maneuvers to force multiple trials, eroding defendants' resolve; double jeopardy forestalls this by mandating resolution after one jeopardy-attaching proceeding, as affirmed in cases barring retrial post-mistrial induced by misconduct unless lacking intent to provoke acquittal. While comprehensive datasets on thwarted harassment are unavailable—reflecting the clause's success in preempting such abuses—analyses of prosecutorial misconduct reversals indicate that broader application of double jeopardy bars could further deter bad-faith tactics, potentially reducing appellate interventions that indirectly burden dockets. In jurisdictions with weaker protections, such as under dual sovereignty exceptions allowing federal-state successive prosecutions, critics observe heightened defendant strain, though U.S. Supreme Court precedents uphold these as non-violative, prioritizing sovereign interests over uniform finality. Overall, the protection's empirical value lies in fostering prosecutorial restraint and resource allocation toward unresolved offenses rather than revisiting adjudicated ones.

Criticisms: Prioritizing Finality Over Justice in Wrongful Acquittals

Critics contend that the doctrine's absolute prohibition on retrying an acquitted , even in light of compelling post-acquittal of guilt, unduly elevates judicial finality above the imperative to rectify miscarriages of justice where the guilty evade accountability. This stance, rooted in the Fifth Amendment's application , precludes appellate review or retrial mechanisms that could correct erroneous acquittals, potentially allowing perpetrators of serious crimes—such as —to remain free despite irrefutable proof emerging later, thereby prioritizing systemic closure over societal protection and victim restitution. Scholarly analyses highlight the asymmetry in error correction: while wrongful convictions prompt extensive reforms and exonerations—documented in over 3,500 DNA-based cases since 1989 through organizations like the —wrongful acquittals lack equivalent scrutiny or remedies, despite logical expectations of comparable jury error rates in acquittals, estimated at 10-20% in serious felony trials based on conviction statistics and mock jury studies. This imbalance fosters public distrust, as seen in high-profile acquittals like O.J. Simpson's 1995 criminal trial for murder, where subsequent civil findings of liability and public polls indicating majority belief in guilt underscored unresolved questions without criminal recourse. Critics argue that barring retrials entrenches such outcomes, contrasting with jurisdictions like the , which enacted the Criminal Justice Act 2005 permitting retrials on "new and compelling evidence" after acquittal, as applied in cases involving serial offenses. From a causal perspective, the doctrine's rigidity ignores advancements in forensic science, such as DNA analysis, which have overturned convictions but cannot similarly address acquittals; for instance, post-acquittal confessions or genetic evidence in unsolved linked crimes often yield no prosecutorial path due to the bar, perpetuating harm to victims' families and incentivizing prosecutorial conservatism in initial trials to avoid acquittals. Legal scholars like those advocating "new evidence exceptions" posit that safeguards—requiring evidence unavailable at the original trial and meeting a high threshold of reliability—mitigate harassment risks while aligning with truth-seeking, as evidenced by Australia's 2006-2011 reforms under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment Act, which enabled two successful murder reconvictions without documented abuse. In the U.S., proposals for constitutional exceptions face resistance, yet data from state-level mistrial retrials show low rates of ultimate acquittals (under 15% in federal data), suggesting retries enhance accuracy without undue burden.

International and Regional Frameworks

United Nations ICCPR Article 14(7)

Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) enshrines the principle of ne bis in idem, prohibiting the retrial or repreparation of an individual for an offense following a final conviction or acquittal. The provision states: "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." This clause establishes a substantive safeguard against repeated prosecutions, applicable only after a judgment has attained finality, meaning no further ordinary remedies such as appeals remain available. Adopted by the on 16 December 1966 as part of the ICCPR, the treaty entered into force on 23 March 1976 upon ratification by 35 states. As of 2024, 173 states are parties to the Covenant, binding them to implement Article 14(7) in domestic law, subject to oversight by the UN Committee (HRC) through state reports and individual communications under the Optional . The HRC, in General Comment No. 32 (2007), interprets the article as guaranteeing freedom from double jeopardy within a state's , emphasizing that it does not preclude retrials ordered by appellate courts or extraordinary reviews that annul prior decisions on procedural grounds. The clause's reference to "the law and penal procedure of each country" limits its scope primarily to domestic proceedings, allowing separate prosecutions by different sovereigns for the same act unless barred by specific obligations. For instance, the HRC has deemed complaints inadmissible where claims involved cross-border adjudications without evidence of state . Exceptions permit resumption of in rare cases, such as the emergence of previously unavailable compelling evidence, but only if the reopening aligns with fair standards and does not serve merely to circumvent acquittals. This interpretation balances finality with justice, though critics note enforcement relies on state compliance, with the HRC lacking coercive authority beyond recommendations.

European Convention on Human Rights Protocol 7 Article 4

Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the codifies the ne bis in idem principle, stating that no person shall be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same state for an offense for which they have already been finally acquitted or convicted according to the law and penal procedure of that state. This protection applies only after a final decision, meaning one rendered following exhaustion of ordinary remedies such as appeals. Unlike broader formulations of , the provision explicitly limits its scope to proceedings within the same , excluding cross-border or sovereignty scenarios unless addressed by other instruments like the . The protocol was opened for signature on 22 November 1984 in and entered into force on 1 November 1988, following ratification by requisite states including , (for other articles), and the . As of 2025, 43 of the 46 member states have ratified it, with non-ratifications by the (signed but unsigned due to conflicts with domestic safeguards in Article 2), , and one other state per official records. The maintains equivalent protections through precedents like Connelly v DPP (1964), which prohibit retrying acquitted persons for the same facts without findings. Paragraph 2 provides exceptions, permitting reopening of cases upon discovery of new facts or evidence of a fundamental defect in prior proceedings that could have altered the outcome, provided such actions align with contemporaneous law. This carve-out balances finality against justice, allowing retrials in instances of newly available DNA evidence or procedural irregularities, as upheld in domestic implementations across ratifying states. Paragraph 3 prohibits derogations even in states of emergency under Article 15 of the Convention, underscoring the absolute nature of the core prohibition. The (ECtHR) interprets "offence" autonomously, focusing on the underlying facts rather than formal charges, as in Serbia v. Serbia (implied in broader ) where identical facts trigger protection regardless of legal requalification. In Mihalache v. Romania (2017), the Court ruled that prosecutorial discontinuation after a flawed initial trial does not constitute a final , allowing subsequent proceedings without violating Article 4. Conversely, in Marguš v. Croatia (2014), a majority held the provision inapplicable to prosecutions resumed after an expired, distinguishing amnesties as non-final judgments on the merits. The Court has also addressed hybrid administrative-criminal sanctions, finding no violation where parallel proceedings pursue distinct purposes, such as tax recovery versus penal deterrence, provided no duplication of punishment (Grande Stevens v. Italy, 2014). These rulings emphasize empirical assessment of procedural fairness and evidential overlap over rigid formalism. In practice, Article 4 influences national reforms, such as limited retrial allowances in (via 2011 reforms for serious crimes with new evidence) and (despite non-ratification, via Article 103(3)). It complements but does not supersede Article 6 fair trial guarantees, with violations found in fewer than 20 ECtHR judgments as of , reflecting robust domestic compliance among ratifiers. The provision's state-centric focus contrasts with supranational developments under Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which extends ne bis in idem to mutual recognition of judgments across member states.

Absence in Other Global Instruments and Implications

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the on December 10, 1948, omits any explicit prohibition on , or ne bis in idem. Article 11 focuses on non-retroactivity of criminal laws and the but does not address successive prosecutions or punishments for the same offense, reflecting the document's declarative, non-binding nature intended to set aspirational standards rather than enforceable obligations. This absence contrasts with the binding ICCPR, allowing states party to the UDHR—effectively all UN members—to interpret fair trial protections without a uniform bar on retrials, potentially permitting variations in domestic implementation where of prosecutorial restraint is limited. Similarly, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of , adopted on December 9, 1948 and entered into force on January 12, 1951, contains no ne bis in idem clause, emphasizing instead the duty to punish through competent tribunals without precluding multiple jurisdictional exercises. Other global instruments, such as certain conventions addressing penal sanctions in labor contexts, also lack this protection, prioritizing sectoral enforcement over comprehensive safeguards. These omissions stem from a focus on substantive crimes and state obligations rather than procedural uniformity, as treaties often confine ne bis in idem to intrastate proceedings to avoid constraining complementarity. The implications of these absences include heightened vulnerability to successive prosecutions across sovereigns, as does not recognize as a general bar between national and supranational courts, enabling trials by entities like the following domestic acquittals deemed sham or inadequate. This framework, while risking resource-intensive repeated litigation and defendant harassment—evidenced in cases like those before the ICTY where national acquittals preceded international convictions—prioritizes causal accountability for atrocities over absolute finality, reducing impunity in regimes with weak . In regions reliant on non-binding or incomplete instruments, such gaps may exacerbate prosecutorial abuse absent robust domestic checks, though interpretations occasionally fill voids through analogies, underscoring the principle's near-universal domestic but limited transnational application.

Exceptions and Limitations

Retrials Based on New Compelling Evidence

In jurisdictions that have reformed traditional double jeopardy protections, retrials may be permitted following an acquittal if "new and compelling evidence" emerges that was not available or reasonably obtainable at the original trial. This exception aims to address miscarriages of justice where acquittals result from incomplete evidence, such as advancements in forensic techniques like DNA analysis, while limiting applications to serious offenses to preserve the principle's core safeguards against repeated prosecutions. The United Kingdom's introduced such a provision in , effective from 2005, allowing the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to apply to the Court of Appeal for an to be quashed and a retrial ordered for "qualifying offences" including , , , and certain other grave crimes. The evidence must be both "new" (not previously presented or reasonably discoverable) and "compelling" (highly reliable and strongly indicative of guilt), as determined by the court; scientific advancements, such as post-trial DNA matches or witness recantations corroborated by forensics, have qualified in practice. This reform was influenced by high-profile cases like the 1990s murders initially unsolved due to evidentiary limitations, and it applies only once per offense, even if further evidence surfaces later. Similar exceptions exist in Australian states, where reforms permit retrials for serious indictable offenses upon fresh and compelling evidence; for instance, Queensland's 2007 amendments and Western Australia's 2011 changes enable prosecutors to seek court approval for retrials in cases like , emphasizing evidence reliability to avoid undermining acquittal finality. In contrast, the maintains stricter adherence to the Fifth Amendment's , prohibiting retrials after regardless of subsequent evidence, as affirmed in precedents viewing acquittals as irrebuttable determinations of innocence to prevent prosecutorial harassment. This U.S. approach prioritizes absolute finality, even in the face of DNA exonerations in convictions but not acquittals, reflecting constitutional interpretations that new evidence cannot override jeopardy protections post-verdict. Internationally, these reforms highlight tensions between evidentiary evolution and historical protections rooted in ; proponents cite empirical instances, such as the UK's first successful retrial in 2010 leading to a based on DNA evidence unavailable in 1993, as evidence that targeted exceptions enhance justice without widespread abuse, though critics argue they erode defendant certainty and invite selective application. No uniform global standard exists, with systems like historically allowing case reopenings under Article 622 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for new proofs, but holdouts like have debated but not broadly adopted similar mechanisms as of 2023.

Mistrials, Appeals, and Hung Juries

In jurisdictions adhering to double jeopardy protections, such as the and the , a mistrial declared due to a does not terminate jeopardy and permits retrial for the same offense. The U.S. established this exception in United States v. Perez (1824), ruling that the discharge of a genuinely deadlocked constitutes a manifest necessity, thereby allowing reprosecution without violating the Fifth Amendment. This principle recognizes that no verdict has been rendered, preserving the state's interest in a final resolution while avoiding prosecutorial overreach. The "manifest necessity" standard governs court-initiated mistrials without the defendant's consent; retrial is barred absent compelling circumstances, such as juror bias, illness, or deadlock, but routinely upheld for hung juries where the jury has deliberated reasonably without consensus. In contrast, mistrials granted at the defendant's request or with consent generally waive double jeopardy objections to retrial, as the defendant bears responsibility for halting proceedings. Empirical data from U.S. federal courts indicate hung juries occur in approximately 5-6% of criminal trials, with retrials succeeding in conviction rates similar to initial trials, underscoring the doctrine's role in enabling just outcomes without undue harassment. Regarding appeals, a defendant's successful challenge to a typically permits retrial, as the appeal constitutes a of protections against another prosecution for the same offense. The U.S. has clarified that reversal on procedural grounds—such as evidentiary errors or trial misconduct—does not equate to an and allows reprosecution, distinguishing these from reversals for insufficient evidence, which bar retrial akin to a directed . This framework, rooted in cases like Ball v. United States (1896) and refined in United States v. DiFrancesco (1980), balances finality with error correction, preventing defendants from exploiting appeals to evade accountability. In the , principles similarly permit retrial following a or discharged without , subject to the Crown Prosecution Service's assessment of and evidential strength. Post-2003 Criminal Justice Act reforms expanded exceptions for acquittals in serious cases with new evidence, but mistrials remain outside bars, aligning with the U.S. approach by treating inconclusive proceedings as non-final. These mechanisms ensure that procedural interruptions or appellate remedies do not shield guilt from adjudication, prioritizing substantive justice over premature termination.

Dual Sovereignty and Multiple Punishments

The constitutes an exception to the , permitting separate sovereign entities—such as the government and a —to prosecute and punish an individual for the same underlying conduct, on the basis that each sovereignty defines and enforces its own distinct offenses. This principle traces its origins to early U.S. precedents, including United States v. Lanza (1922), which upheld prosecution following a conviction for the same act during Prohibition-era violations, reasoning that the and governments derive from sources and thus do not infringe the when acting separately. The doctrine withstood challenges in Abbate v. United States (1959) and Bartkus v. Illinois (1959), where the Court rejected arguments that successive prosecutions by different sovereigns equated to a single offense under the Fifth . Subsequent rulings reinforced this framework, as in Heath v. Alabama (1985), where the Court permitted to prosecute a for after had convicted him for the same interstate killing, emphasizing that violations of each 's "peace and dignity" created independent offenses absent prosecutorial collusion or bad faith. The doctrine faced renewed scrutiny in Gamble v. United States (2019), where the , by a 7-2 margin, declined to overrule prior precedents and upheld firearm possession charges against a previously acquitted by on charges arising from the same incident, holding that the Clause binds only one sovereign per offense. Critics, including dissenting Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch, contended that the exception undermines the Clause's core protection against repeated trials, potentially incentivizing over-prosecution, though the majority prioritized the structural independence of sovereigns in . In contrast, the strictly prohibits multiple punishments imposed by the same sovereign for the same offense, distinguishing this from dual sovereignty's allowance of cumulative penalties across jurisdictions. Courts apply the Blockburger test from Blockburger v. United States (1932) to assess whether offenses are identical for this purpose: if one offense does not require proof of any fact beyond those required for the other, they are presumed the same, barring cumulative sentences unless legislative intent explicitly authorizes otherwise, as clarified in Whalen v. United States (1980). For instance, in Brown v. Ohio (1977), the Court invalidated successive convictions for joyriding and auto theft stemming from the identical act, as the former was a lesser included offense under Blockburger, exceeding the single punishment permitted for the unified conduct. This limitation ensures that, within a single jurisdiction, double jeopardy curbs not only retrials but also excessive sentencing for indistinguishable violations, preserving legislative primacy over punishment maxima while preventing judicial overreach. The interplay between dual sovereignty and multiple punishments highlights a jurisdictional boundary: while inter-sovereign actions evade restrictions due to distinct legal interests—evident in over 100 federal prosecutions following state acquittals annually, per of data—intra-sovereign multiples remain constrained to avoid vindictive or redundant penalization. Exceptions within the same arise only via clear statutory authorization, such as cumulative fines under federal drug statutes, but Blockburger violations trigger merger of counts or vacatur, as in Harris v. (1977), where felony-murder conviction subsumed predicate robbery without separate punishment. This doctrinal balance upholds ism's enforcement autonomy against the 's anti-harassment rationale, though empirical critiques note disproportionate impacts on defendants in overlapping jurisdictions like civil rights or environmental crimes.

Interstate and International Prosecutions

In the , the dual-sovereignty serves as an exception to the , allowing successive prosecutions by federal and state authorities for the same underlying conduct, as each enforces its own substantive . This principle holds that the Clause prohibits only successive prosecutions by the same , not by distinct ones with independent interests in enforcement. The doctrine was reaffirmed by the in Gamble v. United States (2019), where state charges for illegal firearm possession followed a federal conviction for the same act; the Court ruled 5-4 that no double jeopardy violation occurred, rejecting arguments to overturn precedent dating to United States v. Lanza (1922). Critics, including the dissent, contended that modern undermines the separate-sovereigns rationale, but the majority emphasized historical practice and the need to deter crime across jurisdictions. The doctrine has limited application to prosecutions between different states, as states operate within the federal union and share sovereignty under the , but concurrent jurisdiction can permit successive state trials for the same act if each state independently asserts authority over distinct elements, such as territorial aspects of the crime. For instance, in Heath v. Alabama (1985), the Court upheld dual state prosecutions for a spanning and borders, treating the states as separate sovereigns despite federal oversight, provided no single act is doubly punished under one state's law. Such cases remain rare, often involving interstate crimes like or drug trafficking, and courts assess whether the prosecutions target the "same offense" under Blockburger v. United States (1932) criteria, focusing on statutory elements rather than facts alone. Internationally, the principle of ne bis in idem (non bis in idem) generally prohibits double jeopardy across borders, enshrined in instruments like Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), which bars trial or punishment for an offense already finally adjudicated by a . However, exceptions arise in hybrid or supranational contexts, such as the International Criminal Court's () (Article 20), which permits ICC prosecution after national proceedings if the prior trial was conducted to shield the person from responsibility or lacked independence and impartiality. The ICC's complementarity regime prioritizes national courts but allows intervention for grave international crimes like , as seen in cases from the Democratic Republic of Congo where domestic acquittals preceded ICC convictions for related atrocities, justified by evidentiary inadequacies in state processes. Ad hoc tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former (ICTY) similarly coordinated with national courts via "primacy" rules, deferring to domestic trials only if they adequately addressed the same conduct, avoiding strict double jeopardy bars to ensure accountability for war crimes. U.S. courts do not extend dual-sovereignty protections to foreign prosecutions, treating them as outside the Fifth Amendment's scope, though or treaty obligations may influence decisions.

Jurisdictional Applications

United States

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This provision, applicable to the federal government and extended to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's in Benton v. Maryland (1969), bars a single sovereign from initiating successive prosecutions or imposing multiple punishments for the same offense. The clause aims to preserve the finality of judgments, prevent prosecutorial harassment, and reflect the public's interest in economical , as articulated in United States v. Scott (1978).

Federal Double Jeopardy Clause and Supreme Court Interpretations

Jeopardy attaches in a upon empaneling and swearing the , and in a upon the first witness being sworn, per Crist v. Bretz (1978). An , whether by or equivalent final judgment, bars retrial for the same offense, as established in Ball v. (1896) and reinforced in v. Martin Linen Supply Co. (1977). For determining whether offenses are the "same," the applies the Blockburger test from Blockburger v. (1932), assessing whether each statute requires proof of a fact the other does not; this governs both successive prosecutions and cumulative punishments, though the latter permits legislative intent for multiple sanctions absent constitutional violation. The dual-sovereignty doctrine, a core interpretation, allows separate sovereigns—such as federal and state governments—to prosecute the same conduct without violating the clause, as each enforces its own s reflecting distinct interests. This principle, tracing to Heath v. Alabama (1985) and reaffirmed 5-4 in Gamble v. (2019), holds that the clause constrains only the prosecuting sovereign, not others, rejecting arguments for abolition based on modern cooperative . Exceptions include retrials after mistrials for manifest necessity (United States v. Perez, 1824) or successful government appeals from pre-jeopardy dismissals ( v. Scott).

State Variations and Recent Developments (e.g., 2025 Firearm Cases)

All 50 s provide protections, typically through state constitutional provisions mirroring the Fifth Amendment, supplemented by statutes and ; these must meet or exceed minima but offer no broader shield against prosecution under dual . Variations arise in areas like juvenile-to-adult transfers, where some s (e.g., Florida) bar subsequent adult trials post-juvenile adjudication under state law, though courts apply the clause independently. Interstate prosecutions generally evade the clause due to lack of sovereignty overlap, but full faith and credit principles may influence recognition of sister-state judgments. In 2025, the heard arguments in Barrett v. on , addressing whether cumulative punishments under firearm statutes—specifically, a §924(c) enhancement for using a in drug trafficking alongside a separate §924(c) count for possessing the same during the same offense—violate the clause's multiple-punishments bar. The case, arising from a Seventh ruling, highlights a on whether such statutes target the "same offense" under Blockburger when predicate conduct overlaps, potentially clarifying limits on congressional stacking of enhancements absent explicit intent. As of October 2025, the decision remains pending, but it underscores ongoing tensions in sentencing practices post-Gamble.

Federal Double Jeopardy Clause and Supreme Court Interpretations

The 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." This protection, rooted in English common law principles such as autrefois acquit and autrefois convict, prohibits three primary abuses: successive prosecutions for the same offense following an or , multiple trials resulting from prosecutorial overreaching, and cumulative punishments for the same offense without legislative authorization. The clause applies when jeopardy attaches—typically at the start of trial or entry of a guilty —and aims to preserve the finality of judgments while preventing government harassment of defendants. In Blockburger v. United States (1932), the established a foundational test for determining whether two offenses constitute the "same offence" under the clause, holding that where each statutory violation requires proof of a fact that the other does not, successive prosecutions or punishments do not violate double jeopardy. This "same-elements" test, derived from earlier precedents like Gavieres v. United States (1911), permits multiple charges based on distinct legal elements, as illustrated by the defendant's separate convictions for selling not in original packages and without a written order, which involved different evidentiary requirements. The ruling emphasized statutory intent over factual overlap, influencing subsequent analyses of legislative authorization for cumulative sentences. The Court extended the clause's protections to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment's in Benton v. (1969), overruling Palko v. (1937) and rejecting the prior "" selectivity in incorporation. In Benton, the faced retrial on a charge after an initial was reversed on due to an invalid for ; the Court held that double jeopardy barred the second larceny prosecution, as the original trial had placed him in jeopardy despite the flawed burglary count. This decision ensured uniform federal standards, mandating that states adhere to prohibitions on retrial after and limits on multiple punishments. Further interpretations clarify exceptions within federal practice. In United States v. DiFrancesco (1980), the upheld a permitting government appeals of sentences imposed on "dangerous special offenders," ruling that such appeals do not violate because sentencing does not traditionally constitute jeopardy akin to trial verdicts, and defendants lack a legitimate expectation of finality in provisional sentences subject to statutory review. Conversely, Gamble v. (2019) reaffirmed the dual-sovereignty , originating in cases like Heath v. (1985), allowing successive prosecutions by and state authorities for the same conduct, as each sovereign enforces its own laws independently; the clause constrains only a single sovereign's actions, not inter-sovereign pursuits. These rulings underscore the clause's focus on intra-sovereign constraints while accommodating .

State Variations and Recent Developments (e.g., 2025 Firearm Cases)

State constitutional double jeopardy provisions generally parallel the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the states via the , prohibiting successive prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense. However, variations emerge in state court interpretations of key concepts, such as the definition of the "same offense" and the permissibility of cumulative sentences. While relies on the Blockburger —requiring that each offense include an element not contained in the other—some state courts adopt stricter standards, like the "same conduct" or "same evidence" tests, to bar prosecutions or punishments where offenses arise from identical criminal acts or proof. For instance, courts emphasize legislative intent and often merge offenses under Penal Code section 654 if they share the same act and objective, providing broader protection against multiple punishments than the federal minimum. In , state courts apply the Blockburger elements test alongside principles to assess whether offenses are identical in fact and , potentially vacating lesser convictions as lesser-included offenses. These interpretive differences can lead to disparate outcomes; states with more protective approaches, such as those scrutinizing prosecutorial "stacking" of charges from a single transaction, may dismiss or merge counts that courts would sustain. Recent state-level developments have focused on applications to firearm-related statutes, testing boundaries of multiple punishments for and use. In State v. Williams (June 2025), the held that separate convictions for criminal of a and of loaded within it violate , as the did not intend to treat the integrated components of a single loaded as distinct offenses requiring independent proof. The reversed related convictions and remanded for resentencing, emphasizing that such charges fail the statutory separability requirement under Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-217. In , the granted in Santana v. State (argued October 2025) to examine whether bars retrial following a defendant-requested mistrial caused by prosecutorial error, potentially expanding protections against successive prosecutions in state cases. Though not firearm-specific, this review addresses procedural exceptions like mistrials, which intersect with state firearm prosecutions where evidentiary disputes often prompt such motions. Complementing these, the U.S. 's 2025 term case Barrett v. United States scrutinizes whether dual convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) ( use in ) and 924(j) (causing death with that ) impose unconstitutional multiple punishments for the same conduct, a ruling likely to guide state courts on analogous cumulative firearm enhancements.

United Kingdom

In the , the principle against autrefois acquit—precluding retrial for the same offence after —has long formed a cornerstone of , ensuring finality in criminal proceedings while protecting against state . This rule, dating back centuries, barred retrials even upon discovery of compelling new evidence. Legislative exceptions introduced since the early 2000s permit retrials for grave offences like and when "new and compelling" evidence emerges, approved by appellate courts to safeguard against abuse. These reforms, driven by high-profile miscarriages such as the unsolved 1989 of Julie Hogg despite the perpetrator's post- , prioritize empirical pursuit of truth over absolute finality, though applications remain rare and strictly limited to one retrial per offence across jurisdictions.

England and Wales Reforms Post-2005

The , receiving on 20 November 2003, fundamentally altered protections in through sections 75–96, effective from 18 April 2005. Prior to these changes, imposed an unqualified prohibition on retrying acquitted individuals, irrespective of subsequent evidence. Qualifying offences now eligible for retrial include , , , , , and specific sexual assaults, provided the applies to the Court of Appeal demonstrating "new" evidence (unavailable at trial) that is "compelling"—reliable, substantial, and undermining the or strongly indicative of guilt—and that retrying serves the interests of . The Court of Appeal quashes the acquittal only if satisfied on these criteria, with prosecution requiring leave from the same court. This framework has facilitated convictions in cases previously stalled by the old rule, notably the 2007 trial of William Dunlop for Hogg's , where his and DNA matches constituted qualifying evidence after two hung juries in the ; he received a minimum 15-year sentence. As of 2023, fewer than 20 applications have succeeded, underscoring judicial caution to prevent erosion of the . Critics, including groups, argue the reforms risk incentivizing withheld evidence by prosecutors, though empirical data shows no systemic abuse, with approvals hinging on rigorous evidentiary thresholds.

Scotland and Northern Ireland Specifics

Northern Ireland adopted reforms paralleling via the , effective 18 April 2005, enabling retrials for the same qualifying offences upon Court of Appeal approval of new and compelling evidence, with analogous procedural safeguards. No distinct deviations apply, maintaining jurisdictional alignment under UK-wide legislation. Scotland preserved an absolute double jeopardy bar until the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011, assented to on 16 August 2011 and operative from 28 November 2011, which codifies the rule while carving exceptions for serious indictable offences like , , to severe , and firearms discharge causing . The may seek authorisation for retrial only in "exceptional circumstances," requiring compelling new evidence (real and reliable, likely to have impacted the original verdict) and public interest justification, with the court assessing overall justice balance. The inaugural application convicted Angus Sinclair in 2014 for the 1977 double of two teenagers, based on post-acquittal DNA linking him and his accomplice to semen traces; he received with a 37-year minimum term. By 2025, applications remain infrequent, with the rejecting several for insufficient evidentiary strength, affirming the law's conservative implementation.

England and Wales Reforms Post-2005

The implementation of Part 10 of the on 4 April 2005 marked the primary reform to the double jeopardy rule in , permitting the quashing of acquittals and ordering of retrials for qualifying serious offences upon the emergence of new and compelling evidence. Qualifying offences, listed in Schedule 5 to the Act, encompass , , , , , and certain serious drug trafficking or offences carrying potential . The (DPP) must consent to any application to the Court of Appeal, certifying that it is in the , after which the court evaluates whether the evidence is both new (not previously available or credible) and compelling (highly persuasive of guilt, with a real possibility of conviction). The first retrial under these provisions occurred in R v Dunlop EWCA Crim 1354, where the Court of Appeal quashed William Dunlop's 1989 acquittal for the murder of Julie Hogg based on his post-acquittal confessions to multiple individuals, deemed new and compelling despite occurring after the original . Dunlop was convicted following the retrial in November 2006 and sentenced to with a minimum term of 17 years. This case demonstrated the reform's intent to address acquittals undermined by evidentiary limitations at the time of the initial , such as witness reluctance or forensic shortcomings, without undermining the . Subsequent applications included the 2010 quashing of s in the 1993 , leading to the 2012 convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris after microscopic analysis of clothing revealed new DNA evidence linking them to the victim—evidence unavailable or inconclusive in 1996 due to technological constraints. By 2023, the Crown Prosecution Service had authorized only a handful of such applications, with courts maintaining a high threshold to preserve acquittal finality; for instance, in R v Foy EWCA Crim 9, a retrial application was denied as the proposed evidence failed the compelling test. No substantive legislative amendments to these double jeopardy exceptions have occurred since 2005, though procedural guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service and judicial interpretations have refined application, emphasizing empirical evidentiary standards over retrospective reinterpretation of prior trial outcomes. Critics, including advocates, contend the exceptions risk eroding the societal value of verdict stability, while proponents cite empirical successes in rectifying miscarriages of justice where guilt is causally established by post-trial facts.

Scotland and Northern Ireland Specifics

In , the principle against traditionally prohibited retrying an individual for the same offence following an or conviction, encompassing verdicts of "not guilty" or "not proven," with the latter treated equivalently to an for these purposes. This absolute bar persisted until the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011, enacted on 27 April 2011 and effective from 28 November 2011, which introduced statutory exceptions permitting retrials for indictable offences. These exceptions apply where: (1) "new evidence" emerges post- that is "highly compelling" and likely to have led to conviction, such as DNA matches or witness recantations unavailable at the original trial; (2) the is deemed "tainted" due to proven or fabrication of evidence by the accused or a co-conspirator with the accused's knowledge; or (3) the applies to the for authorisation, requiring a demonstration of public interest and evidential sufficiency. The Act limits retrials to grave crimes like , , or serious assault, mirroring safeguards in but tailored to Scots procedural norms, including no involvement in authorisation hearings to preserve . The 2011 reforms addressed longstanding criticisms, exemplified by cases like the 1977 World's End murders, where serial offender Angus Sinclair's acquittal in 2007 highlighted evidentiary limitations under prior law, prompting legislative change without undermining the presumption of innocence. Applications for retrial require High Court approval, with successful instances rare; as of 2022, no retrials had occurred under the Act, reflecting stringent thresholds to prevent abuse, though the framework enables prosecution where forensic advances yield irrefutable new proof. Convictions remain final without equivalent exceptions for sentence enhancement, preserving finality except in specified acquittal scenarios. Northern Ireland adheres to the double jeopardy principle under common law, partially modified by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (effective 2005), which extends exceptions akin to those in England and Wales. This legislation permits retrial for "qualifying offences"—including , , , , and certain firearm or explosives crimes—upon application to the Court of Appeal if "new and compelling evidence" surfaces post-acquittal, defined as evidence not previously available and substantially undermining the original verdict. Tainted acquittals, involving jury nobbling or , also qualify for referral, with the initiating proceedings subject to judicial scrutiny for admissibility and public interest. These provisions, integrated into Northern Ireland's framework without a , balance finality against accountability for heinous acts, as seen in potential applications to legacy cases amid post-conflict sensitivities. No empirical data indicates widespread retrials, with approvals contingent on evidence meeting a high "compelling" standard to avert frivolous pursuits, though critics note risks of retrospective justice eroding integrity in a with historical prosecutorial challenges. Unlike Scotland's 2011 codification, Northern Ireland's rules derive from UK-wide amendments, ensuring uniformity with while accommodating devolved oversight.

Other Common Law Jurisdictions

Australia and Canada

In , the principle against double jeopardy is rooted in and statutory protections, prohibiting retrial for the same offence following an or . However, several states have enacted reforms permitting retrials in serious cases upon of compelling new evidence. For instance, introduced the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Act 2006, which allows the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a retrial for offences punishable by if fresh and compelling evidence emerges that implicates the acquitted person. Similar provisions exist in under the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Double Jeopardy and Appeal Against Acquittal) Act 2011, extending to offences like and , reflecting a policy shift to balance finality with justice in grave matters. Federally, the has affirmed the principle as a fundamental rule, though without uniform statutory exceptions. Canada enshrines protection against double jeopardy in section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, stating that any person charged with an offence has the right not to be tried or punished for it again if finally acquitted or convicted. This provision guards against multiple prosecutions for the same , emphasizing prevention of harassment and undue punishment, with "finally" interpreted to mean after all appeals are exhausted. Unlike some jurisdictions, Canada does not recognize broad dual sovereignty exceptions, treating federal and provincial prosecutions for the same act as barred if they constitute the same offence under principles. The has clarified that the protection attaches upon a valid , but allows Crown appeals on questions of without violating the rule, provided no retrial on facts occurs post-acquittal.

India and Pakistan

India's Constitution explicitly prohibits double jeopardy under Article 20(2), which states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This safeguard applies only after a judicial or by a of competent , excluding administrative or departmental proceedings from its ambit. The "same offence" is narrowly construed to mean the identical act and ingredients, permitting separate prosecutions for distinct offences arising from the same facts—such as possession and sale of contraband under different statutes—without infringement. Judicial interpretations, including by the , have upheld this limitation, rejecting broader expansions to prevent abuse while allowing compoundable or lesser offences to proceed independently. In , double jeopardy is protected by Article 13 of the , which declares that no person shall be punished more than once for the same offence or tried again for an offence resulting in prior or . This is supplemented by Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, barring second trials for the same offence except in cases of reversed convictions or where new evidence warrants review under specific appellate procedures. The principle aims to prevent repeated prosecutions for identical wrongs, with courts interpreting "same offence" based on factual overlap rather than mere statutory labels, though parallel civil remedies remain permissible. Exceptions are limited, such as appeals against acquittals on substantial grounds, ensuring procedural finality while permitting corrections of manifest errors.

Australia and Canada

In , the principle against double jeopardy is enshrined in , prohibiting the prosecution of an individual twice for the same offense following a final or , as affirmed by the in cases such as R v Carroll (2002), where it was recognized as a fundamental safeguard against state overreach. Unlike , there is no explicit constitutional prohibition, leaving protections subject to statutory variation across states and territories. Several jurisdictions have enacted exceptions permitting retrials for serious offenses upon the emergence of "fresh and compelling ," particularly in cases of acquittal for or other violent crimes. introduced such reforms via the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Act 2006, allowing the Court of Criminal to quash an and order a retrial if substantial new renders the original verdict unsafe. Similar provisions exist in under the Crimes Act 1958 (as amended in 2007) and , targeting indictable offenses with thresholds requiring the evidence to be both cogent and likely to have affected the jury's verdict. expanded these exceptions on February 1, 2024, through the Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Double Jeopardy Exception) Amendment Act 2024, adding 10 offenses including manslaughter and unlawful striking causing death, applicable only post-2007 acquittals and requiring approval. These reforms, justified by empirical needs to address wrongful acquittals in high-stakes cases like the 1998 of Caroline Byrne (leading to Bradley Murdoch's 2006 retrial under similar provisions), balance finality with justice but have been critiqued for eroding certainty without uniform federal oversight. In Canada, double jeopardy is constitutionally protected under section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), which states that any person charged with an offense has the right, if finally acquitted, not to be tried for it again, and if finally convicted and punished, not to be tried or punished again. This provision applies to proceedings in respect of offenses prosecutable by indictment or punishable by imprisonment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in R v Wigglesworth (1987), which distinguished criminal from disciplinary matters but upheld the core bar on retrials after final acquittal. Unlike Australian reforms, Canada maintains a stricter adherence without statutory exceptions for new evidence; retrials are precluded post-acquittal unless an appellate court overturns it on a question of law alone, as permitted under section 676 of the Criminal Code (enacted 1930 and upheld against Charter challenges). The has reinforced this in cases like R v Van Rassel (1990), clarifying that dual sovereignty (e.g., federal-provincial overlaps) does not inherently violate section 11(h), but successive prosecutions for the same act under different statutes may trigger if they constitute the "same offense" based on factual nexus. No broad retrial mechanisms exist for acquittals based on post-trial evidence, preserving the principle's finality, though appeals from acquittals on law—successful in about 20-30% of cases per empirical reviews—can lead to new trials without constituting double jeopardy. This framework prioritizes accused protections over revisiting factual disputes, contrasting with exception-laden common law peers and reflecting Charter-era emphasis on procedural safeguards amid stable conviction rates.

India and Pakistan

In , protection against double jeopardy is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 20(2), which provides that "no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once." This clause, part of the fundamental rights framework adopted in 1950, limits the protection to scenarios involving both prior prosecution and punishment, excluding mere acquittals without punishment or proceedings not resulting in a final judgment. Complementing this, Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), codifies the principle by barring retrials after acquittal, conviction, or certain other determinations for the identical offence, with exceptions for distinct offences under separate laws even if based on overlapping facts, such as departmental inquiries or civil suits. Courts have interpreted these provisions narrowly; for instance, in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953), the held that Article 20(2) does not apply to customs confiscation proceedings lacking punitive intent akin to criminal punishment. In , the doctrine is similarly embedded in Article 13 of the 1973 Constitution, stating that "no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once," mirroring India's formulation while emphasizing safeguards against repeated criminal sanctions. Operationally, Section 403 of the Code of , 1898 (still applicable as of 2023), enforces this through pleas of autrefois acquit (prior barring retrial) and autrefois (prior precluding further prosecution), applicable once a competent delivers a final judgment on the merits. Exceptions align with traditions inherited from British rule, permitting subsequent actions for different offences from the same transaction or non-criminal proceedings, though enforcement has faced criticism for inconsistencies in practice, particularly in politically sensitive cases where procedural lapses allow circumvention. Both nations' frameworks, rooted in English via colonial-era codes, provide narrower safeguards than broader Anglo-American interpretations, focusing on finality of punishment rather than jeopardy attachment upon trial commencement, with no statutory exceptions for new as in some jurisdictions like the post-2005. This has preserved prosecutorial discretion for multifaceted incidents but raised debates on adequacy, as evidenced by calls for expansion in special enactments like anti-terrorism laws where repeated probes occur under parallel statutes.

Civil Law Jurisdictions

In jurisdictions, the principle of ne bis in idem—Latin for "not twice for the same"—functions as the doctrinal counterpart to , barring repeated prosecution or punishment for the identical offense following a final judgment. This safeguard, rooted in and codified in national constitutions or penal codes, emphasizes procedural finality but permits exceptions for appeals, new evidence, or distinctions between criminal and administrative sanctions, differing from stricter acquittal protections. Empirical analyses indicate these systems prioritize truth-finding through iterative over absolute barriers to retrying cases, with appellate reversals occurring in approximately 3-5% of criminal appeals in member states as of 2022 data. In and , ne bis in idem aligns with standards under Protocol No. 7, Article 4, prohibiting retrial for the same offense absent materially distinct facts or insufficient prior enforcement. 's Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 385) enforces this in core criminal matters but allows parallel administrative fines, as seen in 2023 rulings balancing tax penalties with criminal liability to avoid ECHR violations. 's (Article 103(3)) and , including a 2023 decision, reinforce no multiple punishments for the same act, yet permit sequential proceedings if the initial judgment lacks definitive enforcement, such as in cases under EU Directive 2017/1371. These frameworks have faced criticism for potential overreach in cross-border enforcement, where domestic courts in 2022-2023 deferred to foreign agreements only if equivalence is proven. Japan and South Korea incorporate constitutional bans on double jeopardy—Article 39 in 's 1947 Constitution and Article 13 in 's 1987 Constitution—yet operationalize them through appeal-heavy systems that enable retrials until exhaustion of remedies. In , a 1950 Supreme Court ruling treats sequential trials for the same offense as a single "jeopardy" episode, allowing prosecutorial appeals from acquittals, which contributed to retrial initiations in 2.3% of cases from 2010-2020 per data. 's framework similarly permits up to three prosecutorial opportunities via appeals, with the overturning lower acquittals in roughly 4% of reviewed criminal matters annually as of 2020, prioritizing evidentiary completeness over early finality. Such mechanisms reflect civil law's inquisitorial emphasis on correcting errors, though they raise concerns about prolonged uncertainty for defendants, evidenced by average case durations exceeding 18 months in appellate stages.

France and Germany

In France, the principle of non bis in idem—prohibiting trial or punishment twice for the same offense—is enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly through provisions governing final judgments. Article 385 stipulates that an acquittal on the merits bars subsequent prosecution for the same facts, ensuring procedural finality once a definitive ruling is issued. This protection applies domestically and extends to foreign judgments under Article 692, which recognizes acquittals abroad as precluding retrial in France for equivalent offenses, subject to reciprocity and public policy considerations. Exceptions are narrowly construed; for instance, retrial may occur if entirely new qualifying facts emerge that alter the offense's nature, but not merely for new evidence undermining the original verdict. French courts have applied this principle strictly in criminal matters, rejecting parallel administrative and criminal sanctions that effectively punish the same conduct twice, as seen in rulings declaring dual prosecutions for market abuse unconstitutional under the broader guarantee. This aligns with Article 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which incorporates, limiting cumulation of penalties unless they pursue distinct objectives with proportionality. In practice, violations have arisen in cross-border cases, such as challenges to French proceedings following U.S. agreements, where courts weigh whether prior resolutions constitute final judgments equivalent to acquittals. No broad legislative reforms have expanded exceptions for serious crimes based on new evidence, maintaining the principle's absolutist core post-acquittal. In , non bis in idem is constitutionally protected under Article 103(3) of the , which declares: "No one may be punished more than once for the same deed according to the provisions of general criminal laws." This absolute prohibition applies after a final and binding judgment, whether or , preventing legislative overrides that would permit retrial solely on new evidence. The has upheld this as an inviolable guarantee of , rejecting attempts to qualify it for procedural flaws or evidentiary developments. A 2021 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure sought to introduce exceptions for , , , war crimes, and severe sexual offenses, allowing reopening of acquittals if new facts or evidence justified doubt in the verdict's correctness. Enacted on December 21, 2021, this reform aimed to address historical injustices, such as unresolved Nazi-era cases, but was challenged as violating Article 103(3)'s core protection against repeated exposure to judgment. On October 31, 2023, the invalidated the provision in its entirety, ruling that it impermissibly eroded the finality of acquittals without constitutional basis, even for grave crimes, and lacked sufficient safeguards against abuse. The decision emphasized that any deviation requires explicit , reinforcing Germany's stricter stance compared to jurisdictions permitting evidentiary exceptions under the Protocol No. 7.

Japan and South Korea

In Japan, the principle prohibiting double jeopardy, known as non bis in idem, is constitutionally protected under Article 39(1) of the 1947 Constitution, which states: "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." This provision applies after a final judgment (res judicata), preventing retrial for the same offense once acquittal or conviction becomes unappealable. However, unlike in common law systems such as the United States, where acquittals are immediately final and non-appealable by the prosecution, Japan's civil law framework allows prosecutors to appeal acquittals to higher courts (district courts, high courts, and the Supreme Court), effectively permitting retrial through the appellate process until finality is reached. Exceptions are narrow, limited to cases involving retrial for newly discovered evidence under Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (e.g., DNA evidence post-2004 reforms), but these require Supreme Court approval and do not override the core prohibition after exhaustion of appeals. South Korea similarly enshrines double jeopardy protection in Article 13(1) of its 1987 Constitution (amended 2010), providing: "No person shall be prosecuted or punished for any act unless such act constitutes a violation of law as prescribed at the time it was committed or of which he has been acquitted, nor shall he be placed in double jeopardy." As in Japan, this attaches only after a final and binding judgment, with the prosecution empowered to appeal acquittals across three tiers: district court, high court, and Supreme Court, granting multiple opportunities for reversal and retrial absent constitutional violation claims. The principle, termed ilsabujae ri (prohibition of multiple punishments for one act), is codified in Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act, barring reprosecution for the "same facts and evidence" post-acquittal, though interpretations by the Constitutional Court allow appeals to ensure factual accuracy, distinguishing it from absolute common law finality. Limited exceptions exist for retrials under Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act, such as for perjury revelations or new exculpatory evidence, but these are rarely invoked and subject to strict judicial oversight to prevent abuse. Empirical data from Korean courts indicate that appellate reversals of acquittals occur in under 5% of cases annually, reflecting prosecutorial caution amid the system's 99%+ conviction rate at trial level. Both nations' approaches prioritize systemic truth-finding over immediate finality, rooted in traditions emphasizing hierarchical review to correct errors, though critics argue this dilutes individual protections compared to jurisdictions. No major reforms expanding exceptions (e.g., for serious crimes like ) have occurred as of 2025, with adherence to standards under treaties like the ICCPR upheld, albeit with reservations on .

Notable Controversies and Reforms

High-Profile Cases of Perceived Injustices

The murder of Julie Hogg in , , on November 16, 1989, exemplified frustrations with the double jeopardy rule prior to its reform. William "Billy" was tried twice in 1990 and 1991 for strangling the 22-year-old victim and hiding her body under a bathtub in her home, but juries acquitted him both times due to insufficient evidence. In 1999, while imprisoned for an unrelated murder, Dunlop confessed to Hogg's killing, yet the pre-2005 law barred retrial, allowing him to remain free on that charge despite the admission. The victim's mother, Ann Ming, campaigned vigorously for legislative change, arguing that the rule shielded confessed killers from accountability when new evidence emerged, which directly influenced the permitting retrials for serious offenses with "new and compelling" evidence. Dunlop was retried and convicted in 2006, receiving a life sentence with a 17-year minimum term. The 1993 stabbing death of Stephen Lawrence in , southeast , further fueled perceptions of systemic failure under double jeopardy constraints. Five suspects were identified, but a 1996 private prosecution acquitted Gary Dobson and David Norris after the Crown Prosecution Service declined to pursue charges due to evidential weaknesses. The Macpherson Inquiry in 1999 criticized police handling as institutionally racist and recommended abolishing double jeopardy for murder cases with fresh evidence, highlighting how the rule perpetuated impunity in high-profile racial violence incidents. Reforms enabled a 2011 retrial based on minute DNA traces linking Dobson and Norris to Lawrence's clothing, resulting in their 2012 convictions for murder and life sentences. Public outrage over the initial inability to retry underscored debates on balancing finality against justice when forensic advancements post-acquittal revealed overlooked connections. In the United States, the 1988 killing of Brenda Sue Schaefer in , illustrated double jeopardy protections enabling perceived evasion of murder accountability. Mel , Schaefer's former boyfriend, was acquitted of her strangulation and sexual torture in December 1990 after Polaroid photos depicting the brutality—discovered during a home search but ruled inadmissible—were withheld from the . The images surfaced publicly in 1992 during the trial of Ignatow's ex-fiancée, who had lied to support his ; Ignatow then admitted the crime in a sworn deposition but faced no murder retrial due to the Fifth Amendment's strict bar on retrying acquittals, even with confessions or new proof. He received an eight-year sentence for tampering with evidence and died in 2008 without serving time for , prompting criticism that the clause prioritized prosecutorial restraint over victim justice in cases of evident guilt post-verdict. These instances, spanning jurisdictions with traditions, amplified calls for exceptions to , particularly amid DNA and forensic progress, though U.S. federal courts have upheld the rule's rigidity absent legislative amendment.

Debates on Expanding Exceptions for Serious Crimes

In , particularly , recent legislative efforts have focused on broadening exceptions beyond to encompass other grave offences, driven by advancements in DNA analysis and unresolved cases. and Other Legislation (Double Jeopardy Exception Expansion) Amendment Bill 2024 expanded the "fresh and compelling evidence" threshold to apply to six unlawful killing offences, including , and four sexual offences, such as and causing bodily harm. This reform, enacted on March 6, 2024, aims to rectify perceived injustices where acquittals preceded the emergence of forensic breakthroughs, with proponents citing public demand for accountability in cold cases. Advocates for expansion, including Queensland lawmakers, contend that rigid adherence to traditional double jeopardy bars perpetuates impunity for serious perpetrators when new evidence—often scientific—surfaces post-acquittal, undermining victim trust in the justice system. They reference the infrequency of retrials under prior limited exceptions, noting only four applications in since 2006, with three convictions, suggesting safeguards like high evidentiary bars mitigate abuse risks. Empirical data from similar provisions post-2003, where five retrials occurred by 2019 with all convictions upheld, bolsters claims that expansions enhance deterrence without broadly eroding finality. Critics, including groups, warn that broadening exceptions invites prosecutorial overreach, potentially coercing innocent acquittees into pleas or retries amid evolving standards, thus diluting the and acquittal's sanctity. In the context, where most states maintain strict no-retrial rules absent appeals, opponents highlight risks to , as seen in debates over dual sovereignty exceptions, arguing expansions could cascade into habitual offender targeting without causal proof of guilt . They emphasize that acquittals reflect holistic trial failures, not mere gaps, and cite low rates in reformed systems as insufficient to justify systemic shifts prioritizing over procedural . These debates underscore tensions between evidential realism—where post-trial discoveries demand reevaluation—and foundational protections against state repetition, with expansions serving as a amid sparse global data on long-term impacts.

Empirical Impacts on Conviction Rates and Public Confidence

Empirical analyses indicate that exceptions to the rule have exerted minimal influence on aggregate rates in jurisdictions permitting retrials for serious offenses with new compelling . In , following the , retrials have been authorized in only a handful of cases over two decades, with approvals limited to exceptional circumstances requiring consent and Court of Appeal certification of new likely to overturn the . By 2009, just one retrial had resulted in (the 2006 case of Billy Dunlop for the 1978 murder of Julie Hogg), underscoring the rarity that precludes any measurable effect on broader prosecution outcomes, which are dominated by initial trials and influenced by factors like quality, plea rates, and resource allocation rather than retrial exceptions. Similar patterns hold in states like , where reforms since 2006 have yielded few retrials, failing to alter overall statistics significantly. Experimental research on behavior in simulated retrials reveals potential countervailing dynamics that may suppress rates under exceptions. A 2024 study involving mock jurors exposed to identical found that of a prior —inevitable in retrials—led to significantly higher rates compared to scenarios presented as first trials, attributed to jurors' heightened caution against perceived prosecutorial overreach or sympathy for the defendant's prior ordeal. This "retrial penalty" suggests that while exceptions theoretically enable additional convictions, psychological biases could neutralize gains, aligning with the observed infrequency of successful retrials and absence of upward trends in serious offense data post-reform. Regarding public confidence, the strict application of double jeopardy has been linked to erosion in trust when new evidence implicates acquitted individuals in high-profile cases, prompting reforms to address perceived systemic failures. Legislative changes in the UK, motivated by cases such as the 1993 Stephen Lawrence murder—where acquittals stood despite subsequent admissions—were explicitly framed to "rebalance" the system toward victims and restore faith by permitting justice via retrial in rare instances of compelling post-acquittal developments. Law review analyses note that unaddressed apparent miscarriages, like those involving suppressed confessions or forensic advances, diminish perceptions of fairness, as publics intuit that finality should yield to accuracy when innocence of the verdict emerges, though quantitative surveys tying double jeopardy adherence directly to confidence metrics remain scarce. Reforms' narrow scope preserves core protections while mitigating backlash, with no evidence of diminished trust post-implementation, as rare retrials avoid overreach concerns.

References

  1. [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. [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. [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 ...
  4. [4]
    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, ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] A History of the Common Law Double Jeopardy Principle
    Origins of the Principle​​ A double jeopardy principle of sorts was evidenced by Law 5 of the nineteenth century BCE Code of Hammurabi:
  6. [6]
    Imposition of Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense
    The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense, but multiple punishments can occur if a single transaction violates ...<|separator|>
  7. [7]
    Supreme Court Reaffirms Exception to Double Jeopardy
    Dec 11, 2019 · 'Double jeopardy' prohibits one from being tried twice for the same offense. Prosecution by 'separate sovereigns' is the exception, ...
  8. [8]
    Explaining the Double Jeopardy Clause - New Jersey State Bar ...
    Aug 22, 2025 · “The constitutional prohibition against 'double jeopardy' was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and ...
  9. [9]
    Double Jeopardy :: Fifth Amendment -- Rights of Persons - Justia Law
    The constitutional prohibition against 'double jeopardy' was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible ...
  10. [10]
    jeopardy | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Jeopardy attaches at the moment a prosecution commences - in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and in a bench trial when the first witness is sworn.
  11. [11]
    On the Blockburger Test - Ohio State Bar Association
    Dec 20, 2019 · If not, double jeopardy bars additional prosecution and punishment. The test forbids cumulative punishments and successive prosecutions for both ...
  12. [12]
    What Constitutes the Same Offense Under Double Jeopardy?
    Oct 1, 2023 · Blockburger would have permitted the second prosecution because two different victims were involved. But, the government was not allowed to make ...
  13. [13]
    Double Jeopardy - FindLaw
    Aug 25, 2023 · The protection against double jeopardy keeps defendants from facing criminal prosecution more than once for the same offense.
  14. [14]
    When Double Jeopardy Protection Applies - FindLaw
    Nov 3, 2023 · Double Jeopardy Exceptions. If the case results in a mistrial, the government may prosecute the defendant a second time. A mistrial may occur ...
  15. [15]
    Scope of the Double Jeopardy Clause | U.S. Constitution Annotated
    Because a prime purpose of the clause is to protect against the burden of multiple trials, a defendant who raises and loses a double jeopardy claim during ...
  16. [16]
    Crist v. Bretz | 437 U.S. 28 (1978) - Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
    "[The Double Jeopardy Clause] does not mean that [a person] shall not be tried for the offence a second time if the jury shall have been discharged without ...<|separator|>
  17. [17]
    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 ...<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Fifth Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Thus, jeopardy does not attach unless a risk of the determination of guilt exists. If some event or circumstance prompts the trial court to declare a mistrial, ...
  19. [19]
    Justices to apply double jeopardy principles to federal firearm offense
    Oct 2, 2025 · Blockburger established a test for deciding when multiple punishments may be imposed for a single criminal event, one that has proven workable ...
  20. [20]
    Successive Prosecutions for Same Offense and Double Jeopardy
    observing that each offense required the same proof and for double jeopardy purposes met the same evidence test in Blockburger v. United States.Footnote<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    Double Jeopardy: Know Your Legal Protections in Court - Bulldog Law
    May 13, 2025 · It ensures that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” While the concept sounds simple, ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Emerging Standards in Supreme Court Double Jeopardy Analysis
    Jan 17, 2025 · A primary purpose of the double jeopardy clause is to protect the defendant's right to have his trial completed by the particular tribunal that ...
  23. [23]
    Civil Judgment vs. Criminal Conviction in the O.J. Simpson Case
    O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder but found liable in civil court for wrongful death. How can both be true?Missing: double jeopardy
  24. [24]
    OJ Simpson: Can One Be Found Civilly Liable for Wrongful Death ...
    May 10, 2024 · OJ Simpson: Can One Be Found Civilly Liable for Wrongful Death ... Now, some of you may be thinking, “isn't that double jeopardy?” No ...
  25. [25]
    UNITED STATES, Appellant v. Irwin HALPER. | Supreme Court
    In this case, we consider whether and under what circumstances a civil penalty may constitute punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis.
  26. [26]
    Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997)
    We hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not a bar to the later criminal prosecution because the administrative proceedings were civil, ...
  27. [27]
    res judicata | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Res judicata is a Latin phase that translates to “a matter judged.” It is the principle that a cause of action may not be relitigated once there has been a ...
  28. [28]
    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.
  29. [29]
    [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.
  30. [30]
    The Spirit of Canon Law (Chapter 30)
    The principle of ne bis in idem (not twice against the same thing), forbidding several punishments for a single crime, was taken over in modern legal systems. ...
  31. [31]
    A common law principle | ALRC
    Dec 8, 2014 · For instance, Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England grounds the pleas of autrefois acquit (former acquittal)and autrefois ...
  32. [32]
    Plea Agreements and the Double Jeopardy Clause
    Jan 23, 2024 · Influential English jurist Sir Edward Coke noted that autrefois acquit “must be of the same felony.” Prominent English judge Sir Matthew Hale ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Double Jeopardy: Its History, Rationale and Future
    doctrine of double jeopardy may be found in the common law as early as 125024 and in the Spanish Fuero Real of 1255.25 By the thirteenth century England ...
  34. [34]
    Double Jeopardy: The History, The Law on JSTOR
    A specific bar against double jeopardy has existed in the common law at least since the confrontation between Henry II and Saint Thomas Becket in 1164.
  35. [35]
    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, ...
  36. [36]
    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 ...
  37. [37]
    Germany 1949 (rev. 2014) Constitution
    Prohibition of double jeopardy · Protection from unjustified restraint ... Unless otherwise provided by a law, a German within the meaning of this Basic ...
  38. [38]
    Judgment of 31 October 2023 - Bundesverfassungsgericht
    Oct 31, 2023 · The double jeopardy rule that Art. 103(3) of the Basic Law imposes on criminal prosecution authorities would be practically meaningless if the ...
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Federal Double Jeopardy Policy - Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law
    2. The interest in preventing the prosecution from harassing a defendant with repeated trials, any of which may be terminated at the whim of the prosecution ...
  40. [40]
    Why Are Double Jeopardy Protections Important? - FindLaw
    Oct 20, 2023 · Double jeopardy protections balance the power between the state and individuals, preventing harassment through repeated trials.
  41. [41]
    Why Are Criminal Jury Trials So Expensive to Defend? - JustAnswer
    Feb 13, 2024 · Studies have estimated the average cost of a felony trial in the United States to be around $12,000, with some exceeding $1 million for complex ...
  42. [42]
    Fewer than 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted in 2022
    Jun 14, 2023 · In 2022, only 290 of 71954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted.
  43. [43]
    What Are Your Chances of Getting Acquitted at Trial?
    May 7, 2024 · ​18 percent of jury trials resulted in acquittal, and 82 percent resulted in a conviction. Mistrials, where a trial ends without a verdict, are ...
  44. [44]
    Only 2% of federal criminal defendants went to trial in 2018
    Jun 11, 2019 · Put another way, only 320 of 79,704 total federal defendants – fewer than 1% – went to trial and won their cases, at least in the form of an ...
  45. [45]
    The System: The Truth About Trials | The Marshall Project
    Nov 4, 2020 · Trouble is, trials are rare. About 94 percent of felony convictions at the state level and about 97 percent at the federal level are the ...<|separator|>
  46. [46]
    Double Jeopardy: Analysis of the Constitutional Protection
    Feb 20, 2024 · Constitutional protections against double jeopardy safeguard against arbitrary government abuse and harassment by limiting the state's power ...
  47. [47]
    [PDF] WHEN DOUBLE JEOPARDY SHOULD BAR RETRIAL IN CASES ...
    Feb 3, 2022 · In Oregon v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that the Double. Jeopardy Clause does not bar the reprosecution of a defendant in cases in.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Reversals of Convictions Tainted by Prosecutorial Misconduct and ...
    This Note argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial after reversals of convictions tainted by prosecutorial misconduct in the submission of evidence ...
  49. [49]
    The Double Jeopardy Clause and Successive Prosecutions by ...
    Oct 16, 2023 · The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause (DJC) is not implicated by successive prosecutions brought by separate sovereigns against the same defendant for ...
  50. [50]
    [PDF] The Tension between Finality and Accuracy: Double Jeopardy in ...
    Some courts have decided that jeopardy does not attach when acceptance of a guilty plea is based on inaccurate information about prior convictions,156 ...
  51. [51]
    (PDF) The Expectation of Incorrect Acquittals and the "New and ...
    Nov 1, 2017 · 157 In Australia, wrongful acquittals have already resulted in law reform. ... wrongful convictions and in protecting the integrity of the system.
  52. [52]
    [PDF] THE PROHIBITION ON GOVERNMENT APPEALS OF ACQUITTALS
    Double Jeopardy Clause is the desire to preserve finality in judicial proceedings. Government appeals of acquittals would clearly lengthen the. 27 appellate ...
  53. [53]
    [PDF] Double Jeopardy, Acquittal Appeals, and the Law-Fact Distinction
    Courts could avert pro-jury trial bias by permitting appeals of errors of law from spe- cial verdicts injury trials (and expanding use of such special verdicts) ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Should the double jeopardy rule be in jeopardy?
    Instead of reform only to the double jeopardy rule, we would recommend a system that addresses both wrongful acquittals and wrongful convictions. It is ...Missing: scholarly articles
  55. [55]
    [PDF] the double jeopardy clause, newly discovered - Albany Law Review
    Jun 11, 2013 · This applies both when a person has been previously convicted and previously acquitted. Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., The Case of Ex Parte Lange (or ...
  56. [56]
    double jeopardy reform: the new evidence exception for acquittals
    The New South Wales Government announced its intention to enact a new evidence exception for acquittals to the double jeopardy rule.Missing: criticisms prioritizing
  57. [57]
    Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32
    Paragraph 7 prohibits double jeopardy and thus guarantees a substantive freedom, namely the right to remain free from being tried or punished again for an ...
  58. [58]
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | OHCHR
    Article 7. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or ... Article 14. 1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In ...Missing: jeopardy | Show results with:jeopardy
  59. [59]
    4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - UNTC
    23 March 1976, in accordance with article 49 , for all provisions except those of article 41; 28 March 1979 for the provisions of article 41 (Human Rights ...
  60. [60]
    [PDF] Non Bis in Idem and the International Criminal Court
    It has been said that the principle against twice punishing an individual for the same crime is as old as the common law itself.1 The roots of the principle can ...
  61. [61]
    Ne bis in idem - Oxford Public International Law
    17 The United Nations Human Rights Committee ('HRC') has held that Art. 14 (7) ICCPR is not at issue if a higher court quashes a conviction and orders a ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] Right not to be tried or punished twice (the non bis in idem principle)
    Sep 21, 2006 · The non bis in idem principle means no one can be tried or punished again for an offense they've already been acquitted or convicted of in the ...
  63. [63]
    ETS No. 117 - Full list - Treaty Office
    Title, Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 117). Reference, ETS No. 117.Missing: countries | Show results with:countries
  64. [64]
    Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 117
    Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 117). Status as of 20/10/2025. Title. Protocol No. 7 to ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] Does the Protection against Double Jeopardy Bar Successive ...
    The question is whether double jeopardy protection bars successive prosecutions in national and international courts, and the "sovereign" in dual sovereignty ...
  66. [66]
    [PDF] Double Jeopardy and Multiple Sovereigns: A Jurisdictional Theory
    This Article offers a coherent way of thinking about double jeopardy rules among sovereigns. Its theory has strong explanatory power for.
  67. [67]
    IHL Treaties - Geneva Convention (III) on Prisoners of War, 1949
    [39] Under international human rights law, the prohibition against double jeopardy has similarly been construed as applying only to intrastate proceedings.
  68. [68]
    On Double Jeopardy, the ICC, and the Special Tribunal for the ...
    Jan 18, 2024 · The International Criminal Court (ICC) is unable to exercise jurisdiction over crimes of aggression committed in the context of the situation in Ukraine.
  69. [69]
    Retrial of Serious Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service
    The rule against double jeopardy is only lifted once in respect of each qualifying offence: even if there is a subsequent discovery of new evidence, the ...
  70. [70]
    Criminal Justice Act 2003 - Explanatory Notes - Legislation.gov.uk
    ... Law Commission and those set out in Lord Justice Auld's review of the Criminal Courts, published in 2001. Examples of new evidence might include DNA or ...
  71. [71]
    Full article: Double Jeopardy, Autrefois Acquit and the Legal Ethics ...
    Apr 16, 2024 · The autrefois doctrine applies where a defendant is tried for the same offense in law and in fact, for which he was previously convicted ( ...
  72. [72]
    https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/double-jeopardy/
  73. [73]
    Why isn't double jeopardy overruled by new conclusive evidence?
    Jun 14, 2021 · For example, such evidence must be fresh and compelling, which means in part that the evidence cannot have even been included in a brief of ...
  74. [74]
    Reprosecution Following Mistrial :: Fifth Amendment - Justia Law
    Generally, a second trial is barred after jeopardy attaches, but a mistrial due to "manifest necessity" may allow it. A defendant's motion for mistrial usually ...
  75. [75]
    When Does Double Jeopardy Apply? - FindLaw
    The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy prohibition is enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
  76. [76]
    Reprosecution After Mistrial | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law
    Generally, a second trial is barred after a mistrial, but may be permitted if the mistrial was due to "manifest necessity," such as a jury deadlock.
  77. [77]
    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.
  78. [78]
    What is a Mistrial? | What Happens After a ... - Varghese Summersett
    Jul 9, 2025 · However, double jeopardy usually doesn't apply if a mistrial is declared. If the mistrial was prompted due to a hung jury or if the defense ...
  79. [79]
    Reprosecution Following Conviction :: Fifth Amendment - Justia Law
    Moreover, a defendant who is retried after he is successful in overturning his first conviction is not protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause against receiving ...
  80. [80]
    Reprosecution Following Conviction | U.S. Constitution Annotated
    A basic purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to protect a defendant “against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction.”
  81. [81]
    Amdt5.3.5 Re-Prosecution After Conviction - Constitution Annotated
    Double jeopardy issues involving re-prosecution ordinarily arise, therefore, only in the context of successful defense appeals and controversies over punishment ...
  82. [82]
    Re-trials | The Crown Prosecution Service
    Oct 16, 2024 · a defendant is acquitted and it is proposed they are investigated or prosecuted for the same serious offence (“double jeopardy”): this is dealt ...
  83. [83]
    What happens when a Jury can't reach a verdict? - Lawtons Solicitors
    Aug 24, 2019 · After a hung jury, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must then determine whether they will have a retrial. This is dependent on the views of ...
  84. [84]
    Dual Sovereignty Doctrine | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law
    The dual sovereignty doctrine states that two sovereignties, with different laws, can prosecute the same conduct, as each has its own offense.
  85. [85]
    [PDF] 20-7622 Denezpi v. United States (06/13/2022) - Supreme Court
    Jun 13, 2022 · Citing the dual-sovereignty doctrine, the Court rejected Wheeler's double jeopardy argument. Page 9. 6. DENEZPI v. UNITED STATES. Opinion of ...
  86. [86]
    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 ...
  87. [87]
    Gamble v. United States | 587 U.S. ___ (2019)
    Gamble v. United States: Supreme Court reaffirms the dual-sovereignty doctrine; the double jeopardy rights of a defendant were not violated when he was ...
  88. [88]
    Supreme Court Rules Dual-Sovereignty Stays
    Jun 18, 2019 · The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person may be “twice put in jeopardy” “for the same offence.” Per the “dual-sovereignty” doctrine, ...
  89. [89]
    The Dual Sovereignty Exception to Double Jeopardy
    This article analyzes the historical development and contemporary significance of the dual sovereignty exception to double jeopardy.
  90. [90]
    separate sovereigns doctrine | Wex - Law.Cornell.Edu
    The multiple prosecutions do not violate the 5th amendment's double jeopardy protection because sovereignties have their own laws, and thus, their own offenses.
  91. [91]
    [PDF] The Dual Sovereignty Doctrine and Successive State Prosecutions
    Under the doctrine of dual sovereignty, the double jeopardy clause does not prevent sepa- rate sovereignties from bringing successive prosecutions for the same ...
  92. [92]
    [PDF] ANNEX C PUBLIC - | International Criminal Court
    Feb 18, 2022 · Article 45. Double jeopardy (non bis in idem). “(1) The principle of ne bis in idem, sometimes referred to as the prohibition against double.
  93. [93]
    The U.S. Supreme Court on International Double Jeopardy
    Aug 30, 2019 · The Supreme Court's recent decision in Gamble v. United States explicitly raised the question of double jeopardy in international cases.
  94. [94]
    Interpretation: The Fifth Amendment Criminal Procedure Clauses
    The Fifth Amendment's second procedural protection is the Double Jeopardy Clause, which provides: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be ...
  95. [95]
    [PDF] Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment
    In United States v. Felix,I the United States Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not bar the prosecution of ...
  96. [96]
    FIFTH AMENDMENT - DOUBLE JEOPARDY
    U.S. SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY ARE REVIEWED, IN CASES OF TRIAL OF A DEFENDANT TWICE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE AND OF ...
  97. [97]
    [PDF] 17-646 Gamble v. United States (06/17/2019) - Supreme Court
    Jun 17, 2019 · Under this “dual-sovereignty” doc- trine, a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him ...
  98. [98]
    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 ...
  99. [99]
    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 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  100. [100]
    Double Jeopardy - NC PRO
    Jul 11, 2025 · The guarantee against double jeopardy protects a defendant from being retried for the same offense after a prior acquittal or a prior conviction ...
  101. [101]
    Attorney explains Protections Against Double Jeopardy in Florida
    Jun 19, 2023 · The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution protect individuals from being twice jeopardized for the same ...
  102. [102]
    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 ...
  103. [103]
    High Court Firearm Case Tests Limits Of Double Jeopardy - Law360
    Oct 2, 2025 · The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next week on the double jeopardy implications of overlapping federal gun statutes in Barrett v.
  104. [104]
    Blockburger v. United States | 284 U.S. 299 (1932)
    Blockburger v. United States (1932) held that two sales of morphine not in original packages were separate offenses under the Narcotics Act.
  105. [105]
    Successive Prosecutions for Same Offense and Double Jeopardy
    Blockburger was not a double jeopardy case, but it derived the rule from Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342 (1911), which was a double jeopardy case.
  106. [106]
    Benton v. Maryland | 395 U.S. 784 (1969)
    Reindicted for larceny and burglary, petitioner filed, on the ground of double jeopardy, a motion to dismiss the larceny count, which the trial court denied. On ...
  107. [107]
    John Dalmer BENTON, Petitioner, v. State of MARYLAND.
    This Court sustained his double jeopardy claim, notwithstanding the technical invalidity of the indictment upon which he was first tried. The Court refused to ...
  108. [108]
    United States v. DiFrancesco | 449 U.S. 117 (1980)
    The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on double jeopardy grounds. Held: Section 3576 does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
  109. [109]
    Understanding Double Jeopardy in California - Southwest Legal
    Jun 20, 2025 · Blockburger Test: If each offense requires proof of an additional element that the other does not, they are not the same offense. · Lesser ...
  110. [110]
    Double Jeopardy - NC PRO
    Jul 11, 2025 · Under the Blockburger test, two offenses are not the same in law if each requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not. E.g. ...
  111. [111]
    [PDF] Double Jeopardy - Defining the Same Offense
    Double jeopardy means a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense, as stated in the Fifth Amendment and ancient laws.
  112. [112]
    State v. Williams - Connecticut Supreme Court Decisions - Justia Law
    The court concluded that the legislature did not intend to treat the possession of a firearm and the ammunition within it as separate crimes when both are used ...Missing: rulings | Show results with:rulings
  113. [113]
    CT Supreme Court orders new trial for man accused of killing ...
    Jun 6, 2025 · The majority also overturned William's convictions for possession of a firearm ... double jeopardy prohibition because he was effectively charged ...<|separator|>
  114. [114]
    Petitions for Writ of Certiorari - June, 2025 - Maryland Courts
    Jun 27, 2025 · Miguel Angel Santana v. State of Maryland – Case No. 19, September Term, 2025 Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should Maryland's double jeopardy common law bar ...
  115. [115]
    Barrett v. United States | Supreme Court Bulletin | US Law
    Oct 7, 2025 · Barrett asserts that giving two separate sentences for charges that constitute the same offense infringes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the ...
  116. [116]
    [PDF] Double Jeopardy - UK Parliament
    Jan 27, 2009 · It is a general principle of English law that a person may not be tried twice for the same offence, whether he was acquitted on the first ...
  117. [117]
    UK | The law of 'double jeopardy' - BBC NEWS
    Sep 11, 2006 · Until the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, there was an absolute bar on a case being reopened after acquittal. That act ...
  118. [118]
    Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 - Legislation.gov.uk
    An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision as to the circumstances in which a person convicted or acquitted of an offence may be prosecuted anew; ...
  119. [119]
    Sinclair convicted after change in double jeopardy rule - BBC News
    Nov 18, 2014 · The trial of Angus Sinclair was the first to be held in Scotland following the ending of the centuries-old double jeopardy rule.
  120. [120]
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1350/jcla.2007.71.1.8
  121. [121]
    Double jeopardy - Scottish Law Commission
    The principle of double jeopardy refers to the rule which prevents a person who has once been tried of an offence from again being tried for the same offence.
  122. [122]
    Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 - Legislation.gov.uk
    The Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 addresses the rule against double jeopardy, exceptions, tainted acquittals, new evidence, and plea in bar of trial.
  123. [123]
    Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 - Legislation.gov.uk
    Exceptions to rule against double jeopardy: common provisionsS · 5Applications under sections 2, 3 and 4S · 6Further provision about prosecutions by virtue of ...
  124. [124]
    What is double jeopardy? What does serial killer Angus Sinclair ...
    Sep 18, 2022 · The Scottish Parliament passed the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act on April 27 2011, and came into force on November 28 of the same year.<|separator|>
  125. [125]
    [DOC] Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011
    In this Chapter, “the 2011 Act” means the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011(1). Exceptions to the rule against Double Jeopardy: applications by the Lord ...
  126. [126]
    What is Double Jeopardy? | OpenLearn - Open University
    Nov 7, 2018 · Double jeopardy prevents a person from being tried again for the same crime. Dr Caroline Derry explains its importance and why the law has also been partially ...
  127. [127]
    Publication - Law Commission on double jeopardy
    Mar 9, 2021 · The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has considered the Law Commission's Consultation Paper No 156 on Double Jeopardy.
  128. [128]
    Double Jeopardy Law Australia - Lexology
    Mar 22, 2024 · Double jeopardy is a criminal law principle that prevents an individual from being tried for the same offence after being acquitted or convicted.
  129. [129]
    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...
  130. [130]
    Double Jeopardy in Australia: The Illusion of an Absolute Protection ...
    The double jeopardy principle prohibits a person being prosecuted for an offence more than once. The High Court of Australia recently confirmed that it is a ...
  131. [131]
    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.<|separator|>
  132. [132]
    Res Judicata - Criminal Law Notebook
    Section 11(h) of the Charter · "Charged with an Offence". The phrase "charged with an offence" refers only to "criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings and ...
  133. [133]
    Double Jeopardy | DONICH LAW
    Apr 28, 2024 · Section 11(h) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees everyone the right, if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again.
  134. [134]
    Double Jeopardy under Indian Constitution - LawBhoomi
    Mar 4, 2025 · Enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution, it prohibits successive criminal proceedings for an offence for which the accused has already ...Constitutional Provisions on... · Scope and Limitations to...
  135. [135]
    The doctrine of double jeopardy - iPleaders
    May 2, 2022 · Article 20(2) of the Constitution provides protection against double jeopardy. It states that no one shall be arrested and punished more than ...Introduction · Origin of the doctrine of double... · Case laws regarding the...
  136. [136]
    Article 20(2) of Constitution of India-“But possessing and selling are ...
    (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This article brings in the concept of double jeopardy.
  137. [137]
    Double Jeopardy in Indian Law: Meaning, Scope & Exceptions
    Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution stands as a vital safeguard against double jeopardy, protecting individuals from repeated prosecution and punishment ...
  138. [138]
    Doctrine of Double Jeopardy - LinkedIn
    May 26, 2024 · In Pakistan, the protection against double jeopardy is enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution and Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure ...
  139. [139]
    Double Jeopardy Under Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 403)
    Feb 12, 2021 · This paper will begin by discussing what Double Jeopardy is, then it will discuss the legal provisions on Double Jeopardy applicable in Pakistan.
  140. [140]
    Protection Against Double Jeopardy
    Mar 29, 2025 · Double jeopardy is protected by "autrefois convict" (prohibiting retrial after conviction) and "autrefois acquit" (prohibiting retrial after ...
  141. [141]
    – Needs to be fixed! HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION AND THE ...
    Section 403 envisages the principle of double jeopardy.17 This principle is that a person cannot be compelled to suffer twice for the same wrong. In simple ...
  142. [142]
    [PDF] Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Double Jeopardy Exception ...
    Feb 1, 2024 · In expanding exceptions to the double jeopardy rule and providing an avenue for subsequent appeals, this Bill modernises core aspects of ...
  143. [143]
    Reforms for double jeopardy and subsequent appeals
    Mar 6, 2024 · The changes expand the 'fresh and compelling evidence' double jeopardy exception to 10 additional offences – six unlawful killing offences and ...
  144. [144]
    Queensland to overhaul double jeopardy laws by expanding ...
    Nov 28, 2023 · The state government has today introduced legislation to expand double jeopardy exceptions to an additional 10 offences.
  145. [145]
    R. v. Wigglesworth - SCC Cases - Décisions de la CSC
    11(h) of the Charter, not to be tried twice for the same offence. The first constitutional question queried whether a prosecution by the Crown for a criminal ...<|separator|>
  146. [146]
    Charter - Section 11(h) - Double Jeopardy - Isthatlegal
    Jul 13, 2024 · The protection against double jeopardy is also part of the framework that governs the Crown's ability to obtain a retrial after an acquittal in ...
  147. [147]
    R. v. Van Rassel - SCC Cases - Décisions de la CSC
    11( h ) of the Charter applies only in circumstances where the two offences with which an accused is charged are the same. In the present case the American and ...
  148. [148]
    [PDF] Double Jeopardy in Canada - USask College of Law
    Double Jeopardy in Canada ... In 1930, the Crown was provided the right of appeal for a question of law alone through Bill 138, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.
  149. [149]
    Article 20 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon
    Article 20(2) prohibits a person from being prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. This principle of double jeopardy prevents individuals ...
  150. [150]
    Section 300 CrPC, Double Jeopardy in CrPC - Drishti Judiciary
    Double Jeopardy Laws in India · The first requirement is that a person must be accused of any offence. · The next essential is that there should be a proceeding ...
  151. [151]
    Special enactments and the need to broaden protection against ...
    Oct 29, 2024 · The principle of “double jeopardy” or protection from being prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence has universal acceptance ...<|separator|>
  152. [152]
    Ne Bis in Idem: How Will France Juggle Criminal and Tax Penalties?
    May 9, 2023 · ... ne bis in idem (“not twice for the same”), the Roman law equivalent of the double jeopardy principle that prevents an accused person from ...
  153. [153]
    A Reasoned Approach to Prohibiting the Bis in Idem - eucrim
    Jan 24, 2022 · The ne bis in idem protection in Art. 50 CFR restricts the ability of EU and national enforcement authorities to prosecute or punish the same defendant for the ...
  154. [154]
    Double jeopardy for market abuse in France - Norton Rose Fulbright
    As a result, it could be argued that French law does not comply with the ne bis in idem principle as interpreted by the ECHR since it allows double prosecution ...
  155. [155]
    [PDF] Ne Bis in Idem: How Will France Juggle Criminal and Tax Penalties?
    Apr 24, 2023 · bis in idem (“not twice for the same”), the Roman law equivalent of the double jeopardy principle that prevents an accused person from being ...
  156. [156]
    The ECJ on the prohibition of double jeopardy according to the “ne ...
    Jun 28, 2022 · The ECJ clarified "ne bis in idem" using a double identity of facts, not a triple one, and established a multi-stage test for proportionality, ...B) Menci V Toshiba... · 3. Conclusion · C) ``ne Bis In Idem'' Must...
  157. [157]
    A Recent Decision in France Applies “International Double Jeopardy ...
    With respect to the four that had signed DPAs, the Court concluded that the principle of ne bis in idem precluded prosecution in France; the other corporations ...
  158. [158]
    THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN
    ... double jeopardy. Article 40. Any person, in case he is acquitted after he has been arrested or detained, may sue the State for redress as provided by law ...
  159. [159]
    Korea (Republic of) 1948 (rev. 1987) - Constitute Project
    Regulation of evidence collection · Protection from ex post facto laws · Principle of no punishment without law · Prohibition of double jeopardy; Show moreShow ...
  160. [160]
    [PDF] The Law of Double Jeopardy in Contemporary Japan
    The prosecution appealed， despite the presence of．article 39 of the Japanese． constitution proclaiming those accused shall not be put in double jeopardy of life ...
  161. [161]
    Double Jeopardy Protection In Courts In Korea: Right Not To Be ...
    Jul 3, 2020 · The application of Double Jeopardy, in Korea, allows the prosecution to have three chances to obtain a guilty verdict.
  162. [162]
    Japan: challenges and solutions for cross-border investigations
    Nov 13, 2024 · 13 Does double jeopardy, or a similar concept, apply to prevent a corporation from facing criminal exposure in your country after it resolves ...<|separator|>
  163. [163]
    [PDF] How the Rule of Ne Bis In Idem Reveals the Principle of Personal ...
    The result of this process is that European legislation that is inspired by Roman Law bases the prohibition on prosecuting the same person more than once for ...
  164. [164]
    Transnational ne bis in idem for corporate involvement in ...
    Aug 2, 2023 · ... ne bis in idem provides a procedural defence in criminal law ... French Criminal Code and Article 692 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure.
  165. [165]
    Double jeopardy for market abuse in France | Global law firm
    The French double prosecution regime of market abuse (criminal and administrative) has been declared unconstitutional by a decision of the French ...<|separator|>
  166. [166]
    Article 50 - Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal ...
    Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the ECHR reads as follows: "1. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction ...
  167. [167]
    "France: The ne bis in idem Principle and Settlements With US ...
    Feb 2, 2015 · Successive investigations in France following U.S. prosecutions and settlements have led to court challenges on the grounds of double ...
  168. [168]
    ne bis in idem | Bedeutung & Erklärung | Legal Lexikon
    Rating 4.6 (946) Aug 25, 2025 · German law: Art. 103 para. 3 of the Basic Law (GG) explicitly states: “No one may be punished more than once for the same act under the ...<|separator|>
  169. [169]
    German top court overturns double jeopardy reform - DW
    Oct 31, 2023 · The Karlruhe-based court Constitutional Court ruled that a reform that allowed repeat indictments in case of new evidence was null and void.
  170. [170]
    Germany's top court overturns double jeopardy reform | Reuters
    Oct 31, 2023 · The German constitutional court on Tuesday ruled that individuals acquitted in cases of murder and war crimes cannot be tried again for the ...
  171. [171]
    [PDF] Criminal Procedure in Japan - Scholarly Commons
    In this sense it may be said that there is no constitutional protection from "double jeopardy". The reviewing court will examine the written record of what ...
  172. [172]
    The Limits of Legal Interpretation of Double Jeopardy and Ethical ...
    ' Double jeopardy and double punishment prohibition fundamentally prohibit the re-prosecution or punishment of the 'same crime or offense' to protect and secure ...<|separator|>
  173. [173]
    Trial decisions to which double jeopardy applies - Lexology
    Sep 6, 2021 · In South Korea, in accordance with the prohibition of double jeopardy, once a patent trial decision on the merits is rendered and becomes ...
  174. [174]
    [PDF] Republic of Korea - Criminal accountability - the United Nations
    (d) Application of principles of ne bis in idem. (e) Permission to prosecute required by Public Prosecutor/Attorney-General/other specific government official(s).
  175. [175]
    Double jeopardy killer William Dunlop 'ready for open prison' - BBC
    Oct 6, 2025 · William Dunlop strangled Julie Hogg, 22, and hid her beneath a bath at her home in Billingham, County Durham, in 1989 but juries twice failed to ...
  176. [176]
    Double jeopardy killer jailed for life | UK news - The Guardian
    Oct 6, 2006 · A judge at the Old Bailey told William Dunlop that he would serve a minimum tariff of 17 years in prison for killing Julie Hogg, 22, in 1989.
  177. [177]
    [PDF] William Dunlop - Summary - GOV.UK
    At that time, he could not be tried for the murder again, due to the double jeopardy rule, which prevented a further trial after an accused had been acquitted.
  178. [178]
    Stephen Lawrence murder retrial due to double jeopardy repeal
    May 18, 2011 · Abolition of the double jeopardy law will now enable Gary Dobson, 35, who was acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1996, to face trial again.
  179. [179]
    Metropolitan Police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence
    Jul 9, 2023 · The Macpherson report had recommended the partial repeal of the 'double jeopardy rule' in murder cases, which stopped people from being ...
  180. [180]
    How scrapping double jeopardy has brought killers to justice | UK ...
    Feb 24, 2019 · Double jeopardy was eventually scrapped in 2005, allowing police and prosecutors to bring offenders to justice if they have new and compelling evidence against ...
  181. [181]
    Double Jeopardy - CBS News
    Jan 25, 2002 · There is no mystery about who killed Brenda Shaefer. Everyone in Louisville, Ky. knows that Mel Ignatow did it. The mystery is why Ignatow is still a free man.
  182. [182]
    Mel Ignatow, one of Louisville's notorious killers, through the years
    Oct 4, 2025 · About a year after he was acquitted of murder, Mel Ignatow confessed to killing his girlfriend, but could not be retried due to double ...
  183. [183]
    The DNA inquiry and double jeopardy in Queensland - QLS Proctor
    Feb 9, 2023 · The rule against double jeopardy prohibits successive prosecutions for the same offence in Queensland, with the exception of murder and some tainted acquittals.
  184. [184]
    Letter from Justice Secretary on double jeopardy
    Jul 15, 2019 · They considered that the exception should be limited to 'those types of case where the damage to the credibility of the criminal justice system ...
  185. [185]
    [PDF] EVALUATING DOUBLE JEOPARDY REFORM
    Dunlop's acquittal and grant a retrial based on his repeated admis- ... 16 R v. Dunlop [2006] EWCA (Crim) 1354, [2], [2007] 1 All E.R. 593, 595. 17 ...
  186. [186]
    Argument preview: Justices to reconsider potentially far reaching ...
    Nov 29, 2018 · The text of the double jeopardy clause bars successive prosecution and punishment for the same offense, the government emphasizes, not for the ...Missing: debates | Show results with:debates
  187. [187]
    The Double Jeopardy Debate: McElrath v. Georgia and Its ...
    Feb 21, 2025 · This article contends that McElrath's acquittal should stand, emphasizing the core principle of double jeopardy and highlighting the potential erosion of jury ...Missing: prioritizing | Show results with:prioritizing
  188. [188]
    Was Queensland's Double Jeopardy Law Reform the Answer?
    The bill became law in March 2024. This article ponders whether double jeopardy law reform was needed to respond to the DNA lab shortfalls. It considers the ...Missing: debates | Show results with:debates
  189. [189]
    [PDF] Double Jeopardy Reform: The New Evidence Exception for Acquittals
    14 Thirdly, the Criminal Court of Appeal would then have the power to quash the acquittal and order a retrial where there is compelling new evidence of guilt ...
  190. [190]
    Double jeopardy: The effects of retrial knowledge on juror decisions
    Aug 6, 2025 · Munro et al. (2024) found that significantly more acquittals were given by jurors when they were told it was a retrial, regardless of whether ...
  191. [191]
    [PDF] Double jeopardy: the effects of retrial knowledge on juror decisions
    Similar provisions exist in England and Wales under Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act. 2003. Such statutory provisions provide a substantial exception to the ...
  192. [192]
    [PDF] The Criminal Justice Bill: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals
    Dec 2, 2002 · The Bill is to introduce major reforms to the criminal justice system designed to rebalance it in favour of victims, witnesses and communities.