Double Jeopardy?

Question

Person A is murdered. Person B is at the scene. Person B is not charged with murder at the time. Person B is charged with littering at the time of the crime. The littering ticket states that 'after Person B murdered Person A, person B littered'. Person B pays the ticket. After an investigation, Person B is charged with murdering person A.

Would person B be able to stand trial for murder? When he paid the littering ticket he pled guilty to the crime listed in the complaint and therefore indirectly pled guilty to murder. It would then be impossible for him to defend himself because he had already pled guilty. Is this possible? Would it be double jeopardy?

Answer 1

Double jeopardy is being tried twice for the same offense. Your scenario would not apply. As far as the guilty plea, it would not apply. Regardless of what the ticket says, he is entering a plea to the charge only, not the officer's notes.

Answer 2

Double jeopardy is about the charges and the elements of the charges. While there may be some facts in common between the murder charge and the littering charge, there are no elements in common (in most jurisdictions) and littering would not be considered a lesser-included offense.

The only exception would be if there were insanely a plea bargain in the littering case in which the State agreed to not file any murder charges. If there were, the State's attorney should be disbarred for gross incompetence.

Answer 3

No Double Jeopardy. Reason murder can not be dealt with in a ticket. Either the ticket would have simply stated that Person B litered. Murder is a felony. Littering is a infraction. They are dealt with in different ways. Murder a person has to get there day in court. Can't sign a ticket and deal with it. Litering often times is a small fine. Good question though. I am sure a lot of police departments have thought of trying this.

Answer 4

The answer to your first question is obvious... the person murders someone else, then it is not double jeopardy. Double Jeopardy comes from the 5th amendment to the U.S. COnstitution whichroughly states that a person shall not be placed in jeopardy more than once for the first offense. This means that an actual NOT GUILTY finding at the first trial isn't actually necessary - a dismissal with prejudice works as well. Once "jeopardy attaches" (e.g. after a jury is empaneled an sworn) any errors by the Government which causes the judge to throw out the case with prejudice will result in a bar to further prosecution. Other findings short of not guilty, such as a hung jury or a dismissal without prejudice do not bar subsequent prosecution. One thing to keep in mind however is that double jeopardy only applies with regard to prosecution conducted by the same sovreign. Take for example, that Nichols fellow in the Oklahoma City Bombing (tomorrow's the 11th anniversary by the way). Tried and convicted in U.S. District for for violating federal stautes related to killing federal officers. Sentenced to life in prison. Later tried and convicted again, but this time by the state of Oklahoma for murder of those same federal officer and 46 or so others. Same transaction and occurrence, but different sovreigns. As long as there is a federal statute prohibiting the conduct that is also prohibited by the state, there is no bar from both prosecutin because the theory is that both government's have an interest in meting out their own justice.

Answer 5

He would be able to take the stand and be tried for murder. Double Jeopardy would be if he was tried for murdered and got away but they wanted to try him again. You can not be placed on trail for the same crime twice.

Answer 6

A person can not be tried twice for the same crime, but person B can still be tried for murder, as he was not charged with that specific crime the first time.

Answer 7

This would not be double jeopardy, as they had not been previously charged with that murder.