I understand double jeoperdy, but in cases where the person actually admits after trial is over that he/she indeed did do the crime-shouldnt they be charged? I think so.
2006-10-19 07:15:09 · 16 answers · asked by ABC 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
case in point: in 55 emitt till was 13 years old and visitng family out of state. he whistled at a 21 year old white woman and two days later he was abducted and brutally murdered by her brother-in-law and another family member. emitt's badly mutilated body was discovered later and an all white jury was selected 2 months later as the men were put on trial for murder. the jury quickly acquitted them and a few months later the men admitted killing emmit. should they have been retried? and as early as the 90's a man was charged with murder of a young girl, and a hung jury could not decide. years later after he sold his home, the owner discovered a covered whole in the floor. upon further examination a small bag containing film was found. the owner had the film developed and the pictures were pictures he took of the young girl in his home, and of her murder. nothing was ever done with him because of double jeopordy. he lives alone in ohio.
2006-10-19 07:21:58 · update #1
WTF!!!!!!!!!
2006-10-19 07:23:26 · update #2
A new law in England permitted the prosecution of a man for murder under just the sort of circumstances you mention: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm
In general, though -- and perhaps the European Court of Human Rights will rule the English law unlawful for that reason -- ne bis in idem (the technical term for double jeopardy) applies as to any crime included within the original charge, but only as to the same sovereign.
(A California constitutional provision is broader: http://snurl.com/coumas )
Often the perp can be tried for perjury. Or as in the civil rights reprise, on federal charges relating to violation of civil rights.
2006-10-19 07:36:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Correct. As others have stated here, and to expand, if 1) jeopardy has "attached" and 2) there has been a final adjudication (acquitted, reversal of conviction (for certain reasons), etc.) then they cannot be tried for the "same" crime again. However, if they disclose / brag about doing it or other facts related to the crime, then they are probably open to a civil suit or criminal charges of a different nature. Just ask Robert Durst. :-)
2006-10-19 07:27:03 · answer #2 · answered by Chris 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The notion of double jeopardy is well-enshrined in our laws and it would be a massive undertaking to ever change it. Though there are ocassionaly miscarriages of justice because of it, it is far better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be put in jail.
On a side note, the UK recently eliminated double jeopardy for the most serious of crimes and convicted someone already acquitted of murder.
2006-10-19 07:31:11 · answer #3 · answered by James 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question would become....is there newly admissable evidence? Becuase someone said something does not make it evidence or necessarily admissable. In the US system the courts are not necessarily saying the person did or did not do it. The Courts are finding out whether its prosecutable and whether its possible to render a guilty verdict...not whether the person committed the crime. Lots of people committ crimes that are obvious...but are not convictable. If your asking about right and wrong...thats quite a different thing than discussing guilty or not in court.
2006-10-19 07:18:57 · answer #4 · answered by aarondarling 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
if they have been acquitted by a judge or jury, they can never be charged with the same crime, however, if charges have been dropped due to lack of evidence, or improper proceedings, such as improper search and seizure, etc.. they can be re-charged and re-tried...so, in answer to your question, no, a person can brag that he/she did the crime and still be scot-free as long as they were acquitted, May not be right, but that is the way the law is set up..
2006-10-19 07:20:31 · answer #5 · answered by Marvin C 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Be careful of what you brag about. You might win in civil court (state)
and brag about it and find yourself being charged by Federal Governement for violiation of another civil rights or even sued by civil court for damages like OJ was.
He was found not guilty of two murders but lost a 33 million dollars law suit that say he was responsible.
Sometimes your own downfall is " your pride" and vanity.
2006-10-19 07:19:59 · answer #6 · answered by cork 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that there are exceptions that make you sick, but the double jeopardy rule was put into place to protect people from harassment from District Attorney's. If they do not have a good case, they should not bring it to trial,as they know they only get one chance!
2006-10-19 07:24:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey, if the state can't produce the evidence to convict, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, then it is their fault. so yes, OJ could conceivably hold a press conference and say "I killed Nicole and Ron" and not be prosecuted with their murders again.
2006-10-19 07:24:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If they were tried, the trial was completed, and they were found innocent, they could write a book about it but still could not be prosecuted. New evidence will not get you another trial. (New evidence can only be used to get a new trial if you were originally found guilty.)
2006-10-19 07:24:02 · answer #9 · answered by Chredon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Double jeopardy is double jeopardy. They would have to charge him with different crimes. Look at OJ....
2006-10-19 07:27:40 · answer #10 · answered by connie777lee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋