OJ Simpson and Double Jeopardy Question.?

Question

I understand that Simpson could not be tried again for the murders due to double jeopardy, but I was wondering with today's Simpson announcement, is there any loophole or clause to this law which could change or override the double jeopardy law?

Answer 1

There is no loophole. After a person is found not guilty, he/she can stand on the court steps & explain to the media how they killed that person(s).

Answer 2

Currently there are only two exceptions that I could find to double jeopardy.

The following is quoted from Wikipedia. Hope this helps.

There are two exceptions to the general rule that the prosecution cannot appeal from an acquittal. If the earlier trial is proven to be a fraud or sham, double jeopardy will not prohibit a new trial. In Harry Aleman v. Judges of the Criminal Division, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, et al., 138 F.3d 302 (1998), an appeals court ruled that a man who bribed his trial judge and was acquitted of murder was allowed to be tried again, because his bribe prevented his first trial from actually putting him in jeopardy. The other exception is that prosecutors may appeal when a trial judge sets aside a jury verdict for conviction with a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendant. A successful appeal by the prosecution would simply reinstate the jury verdict, and so would not place the defendant at risk of another trial.

Answer 3

The "double jeopardy law" is, in fact, the 7th Amendment to the US Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights. The relevant clause is: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". The Supreme Court has been very, very unwilling to recognize any "loopholes" here.

This means that regardless of the evidence that comes out, the same person cannot be tried twice for the same thing. If the state charges someone for the murder of another person, that's the only chance the state gets to prosecute. If they lose, they can't appeal the acquittal except on procedural grounds, nor can they bring a new indictment based on new evidence.

Additionally, the state cannot bring lesser-included charges. The courts recognize that if the state could bring lesser-included charges after losing on the big one, there would be no end to prosecutions, and thus consider double jeopardy to apply here as well.

The same is true in civil contexts. If you sue someone for, say, slander, and lose, you might be able to appeal on procedural grounds, but you can't sue them again for the same thing.

So OJ Simpson, having been acquitted by a jury of his peers in a court of law, is entirely immune from any further litigation relating to the deaths of the people he is alleged to have killed.

Answer 4

To start with he technically said something along the lines of "if I did it this is what happened". There is no way around the double jeopardy issue- and trying him on civil rights charges really is not that much of an option- ultimately it would be somewhat unsatisfying even if he were convicted, and probably open to a lot of legal questions. As for whether or not his actions are stupid- he probably does not have a lot to lose here. His career is over, he lost most of his money in the lawsuit, and if no one has murdered him yet in revenge its probably not going to happen. I will not be purchasing anything that comes out of this, nor will I be watching anything he does on television, or in any other way doing anything that might give him a pay check for his nonsense and anyone else who is offended by him should avoid giving him a paycheck as well.

Answer 5

The only cases I recall that trumped the double jeopardy rule were the police brutality cases in L.A.. They were acquitted in state court and the Feds filed Civil Rights charges against the cops and won conviction.I would definitely say that OJ violated their rights, I would consider it a hate crime.

Answer 6

As far as the courts go, OJ is free to do as he pleases, which seems today to be an idiot. He literally could have admitted his guilt as soon as the jury declared him innocent. That's right, he could have stepped out on the steps of the courthouse and thumbed his nose at us all right then instead of what he's doing now. Of course, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking the law into their own hands and delivering the justice that he really deserves.

Answer 7

The feds can go after him for civil rights violations. That is how they finally got the folks down south for killing the three young men back in the 60's. They were acquitted in their state trials, so the FBI went in and the federal courts got them on the civil rights charges.

Answer 8

You say as if he committed murder. Lets not forget. He was found "INNOCENT" in an American Court Of Law. But double jeapordy prevents him from being charged again with the murders.

Answer 9

he was accused. he proved that he wasn't guilty. he's free. end of story. why do some of you want him to still go to prison? I could see if he got caught on tape killing someone like a lot of cops do that still get off. I guess you figure if a black man even only appears to be guilty of a crime committed against a white person he should still go to jail guilty or not. is that it? or does race have nothing to do with it? because if race is not the issue why isn't there the same outrage surrounding the Robert "Baretta" Blake case? another celebrity accused of and found not guilty of killing HIS white wife. wazzup wit dat? :)

Answer 10

Unfortunatly, no. The double jeopardy statute is pretty binding, so unless he confesses to some crime that wasnt among the original charges, we (by which I mean society) are pretty much screwed.