Can One Be Brought Back To Trial If There Is New Evidence Found After The Defendent Has Been Cleared?

Question

Let's just say that while on trial, the defendent's been accused of a murder and there is little to no evidence to prove that he committed the crime. Jury finds him not-guilty and he is now free. Sometime after the trial the police find new evidence linking him to the murder which he has been proven in court to be not-guilty for. Can he be re-arrested and brought back to trial for a crime in which he was found to be innocent if new evidence is discovered later?

Answer 1

Double jeopardy attaches as soon as the jury is empaneled and sworn in. After that, the prosecution has only one shot at convicting the defendant. No matter how probative the evidence that is discovered after the acquittal, the defendant cannot be retried.

I know I will get thumb-downs for this like there is no tomorrow, from people who don't understand the difference between opinion and fact -- and that the thumb-downs won't change the law of double jeopardy one little bit. Nevertheless, let me offer you an explanation. Very often -- and I am not talking about bona-fide murder or rape cases here -- the government can exert tremendous pressure on its citizens by virtue of its power merely to BRING prosecutions, even if it loses at trial. Imagine if the government could prosecute you for the same thing an unlimited number of times. Because the government probably has a lot more money and resources than you do, it would keep trying you and trying you and trying you until you either died or got convicted, and there would be nothing you could do to obtain a permanent vindication. It would become routine practice for prosecutors to withold evidence and to present it piecemeal, in order to preserve grounds for indefinite retrials. The constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy ensures that the defendant will get a speedy and conclusive trial, at which the prosecution will be obligated to produce ALL the evidence in its possession. Furthermore, the rule against double jeopardy, together with the speedy-trial guarantee pressures the law enforcement into investigating crimes quickly and aggressively. The purpose of these guarantees is not only to protect defendants from harrassment or abuse of prosecutorial power, but also to ensure the public at large an effective system of law enforcement.
-------------------------------------------------

Vanessa -- it's not a good idea to base your opinion of double jeopardy on a movie. The premise of "Double Jeopardy" -- that if you get wrongly convicted of killing somebody, you can then get a free pass for killing that person later -- is ridiculous and laughable. Double jeopardy attaches to transactions, not to victims' identities. Killing Ashley Judd's husband on a boat in 1993 and killing him on dry land 8 states away 6 years later are TWO DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS, and thus do not immunize each other. The double jeopardy rule would mean only that Ashley Judd could not be retried for the 1993 murder -- but it would not apply to the 1999 murder. So, theoretically, yes, you can get convicted for killing someone twice -- as long as you "kill" that person at two different times. As a practical matter, Ashley Judd's Washington conviction would be vacated, and she would be tried for murder in Louisiana -- whose sentencing guidelines, I hear, are a bit tougher than Washington's. Moral of the story: don't take legal advice from disbarred lawyers or Hollywood writers.

Answer 2

In the USA we have the rule of "Double Jeopardy," which states that a defendant cannot be tried for the same crime twice.

In your example, it is doubtful that the DA (District Attorney) would have prosecuted an accused murderer with little to no evidence. The DA's office usually goes to trial with the assumption that they can make their case and get a guilty verdict.

However, using the same example you've given, let's say that the DA brought Manslaughter charges against the defendant and he was found not-guilty. Later, the police uncover substantial new evidence that shows the accused also committed embezzlement. The defendant can be arrested and tried on those charges as this would be a different case than the murder trial.

Answer 3

Once found not-guilty of a particular crime, you can't not be charged with the exact same crime again. It's called Double Jeopardy, however some prosecutors are working around that issue by charging with other offenses that can be connected to the original crime. For instance if at the time of the murder the victim was kidnapped, the defendant can still be charged with kidnapping and maybe convicted of that on the new evidence. Admittedly, the penalty for kidnapping is usually significantly less than the penalty for murder, but any punishment is some justice for the family of the victim.

Answer 4

In the US legal system, you cannot be charged with the same crime for which you've been aquitted. I don't think the law uses the term 'innocent.' They use 'found not guilty' to cover for the fact that they can't say for certain that he didn't do it.

New evidence might, however, lead to new charges on different grounds. For example, Lay Dee Killer murdered Josephine Banker, presumably for the county payroll. He was found not guilty because the prosecutor looked like Jay Leno and the defense attorney was Sarah Michelle Geller.

It is discovered after the aquittal that taking the payroll was actually to cover-up for the fact that it was a contract killing taken out by Joe Banker who wasn't thrilled that Josephine was taking deposits from someone else. Lay Dee Killer can then be charged with other types of murder charges, conspiracy to commit murder, as well as a number of other crimes that a prosecutor would be better able to tell you about.

Answer 5

properly Double Jeopardy might seem to persist with here. you're talking approximately being tried for an identical crime after one trial has long gone all a thank you to the jury. There could be an excellent gamble if the recent info additionally pointed to a especially distinctive ingredient to the crime. case in point, if the homicide got here approximately as area of a theft. The accused replaced into stumbled on no longer in command of the homicide, yet replaced into never charged with the theft because of the fact the police did no longer comprehend the reason. Now they locate info of the theft and understand that's what delivered approximately the homicide. they can not re-attempt the guy for homicide, yet they could be waiting to deliver theft expenses.

Answer 6

No. That's double jeopardy. However, he could be brought to trial for a different charge related to the same crime. Like breaking and entering instead of murder.

Answer 7

No, that would be Double Jeopardy. This would allow cops to charge people over and over again, which could keep a person in jail for countless years without ever being convicted, and costing that person a lot of money in legal costs. This is why cases should never be brought to trial until you have real proof. This example you give is the exact reason that Double Jeopardy laws were introduced, it most certainly applies. *I find it hilarious that I speak the absolute truth, lay it out just as it is, and some nitwit still feels the need to give my answer a thumbs down*

Answer 8

In countries with the English legal system -- Canada, U.S., Australia, and some others, the government cannot legally retry the person for the same crime.

There are sometimes other ways to try the person, though; for example, if they lied about the matter in court they could be tried for perjury.

Answer 9

No,

It's called double Jeporady. Once you are cleared of a crime you can no longer be charged with that crime.

This doesn't apply however to civil litigation

Answer 10

Once the trial starts, that is the only chance their will ever be to prosecute him for that crime. that is why it is important for the prosecution to not go on fishing expeditions in court.