What Is Double Jeopardy?

Being charged with a crime is terrible enough—imagine having to fight the same battle twice. Double jeopardy is a critical legal protection that prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense. However, legal loopholes and U.S. Supreme Court rulings have shaped its application in surprising ways. Understanding double jeopardy is not just a legal technicality but a safeguard of fairness in the criminal justice system. As in all criminal law matters, having a criminal defense attorney on your side is essential.

Constitutional Basis and Legal Framework of Double Jeopardy

Double jeopardy protection is given in the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This clause protects individuals from being prosecuted again for the same crimes once they are found not guilty. It also protects defendants from being retried or given a harsher punishment after receiving a conviction. The third protection given is against multiple punishments for the same offense. The government cannot impose multiple penalties for the same act under the same law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has played a crucial role in defining and interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court has ruled that double jeopardy protections only apply to criminal cases, not civil or administrative penalties. Furthermore, the “separate sovereigns” doctrine allows both state and federal governments to prosecute the same individual for the same conduct under different laws. Other notable U.S. Supreme Court cases have shaped double jeopardy’s interpretation and application:

• Blockburger v. United States established the “same elements test” for determining whether two offenses qualify as the same crime by checking whether each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not.
• Benton v. Maryland ruled that the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy protections apply to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Heath v. Alabama created the separate sovereigns doctrine, which allows different states to prosecute the same person for the same act.
• Ashe v. Swenson determined that the government cannot retry a defendant on issues already decided in their favor.
• Crist v. Bretz established that double jeopardy applies in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in.

Some states strengthen the constitutional protections established by the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, Ohio and Pennsylvania have stricter rules limiting retrials after a mistrial. Massachusetts provides greater protection against successive state and federal prosecutions under its state constitution. Some states have unique exceptions to the Double Jeopardy Doctrine, such as allowing retrial in cases of jury tampering or prosecutorial misconduct that leads to a mistrial or imposing additional protections against prosecutorial appeals after acquittals.

When Does Double Jeopardy Apply?

Double jeopardy doesn’t automatically apply. Certain conditions must apply for a criminal defendant to claim this protection. Jeopardy attaches in a criminal case when the legal proceedings reach the stage where the defendant is in jeopardy of life or limb. It is critical that jeopardy attaches at this point because it bars future prosecution. In a jury trial, jeopardy attaches itself when the jury is sworn in. A bench trial happens when the first witness is sworn in. Once jeopardy attaches, the defendant is protected from subsequent prosecution if they are acquitted. In some cases, they can also be protected in the event of a mistrial.

Acquittal occurs when a criminal defendant is found not guilty. It bars the prosecution from retrying the defendant for the same offense. A mistrial is when a trial ends without a verdict. This can happen when there is a hung jury (the jury cannot agree on a verdict), procedural errors, or misconduct by the prosecutor or judge. Generally, a mistrial doesn’t bar retrying the case. However, it can be barred if the prosecutor deliberately caused the mistrial in an attempt to get a second chance at conviction.

Exceptions and Limitations to Double Jeopardy

Criminal defendants may face successive prosecutions for the same acts in different jurisdictions. This is the concept of separate sovereigns, and it does not violate the double jeopardy doctrine.

State and federal governments are considered independent legal entities with their own laws. The Abbate v. United States case established that an individual can face dual prosecution if their crime violates state and federal laws. However, some state governments, such as New York and California, have laws that prevent their state from trying a person for a second time when already prosecuted federally. Double jeopardy also doesn’t attach after trial and acquittal in federal court, followed by trial and conviction for an offense in state court based on largely the same evidence. This was established in the Bartkus v. Illinois case.

Double jeopardy only applies to criminal law cases. Someone can face criminal charges and civil lawsuits for the same act. The case United States v. Ursery determined that civil property forfeitures do not constitute a punishment for purposes of double jeopardy. That being said, double jeopardy does protect a defendant against double punishments imposed by the government, and there are ongoing debates around the distinction between criminal versus civil punishments.

Practical Implications and Legal Protections

The U.S. Constitution provides individuals with several rights. One of those rights is due process of law. Under this right, the court strives to fairly apply the law through a series of set procedures. Under the Fifth Amendment, no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. With these protections in place, a criminal defendant can exercise their rights to advocate for themselves in criminal court. Because applying these rights can be complicated, hiring a criminal attorney can be beneficial. A criminal lawyer will understand the purposes of the double jeopardy clause and how to best advocate for their client.

To bring a double jeopardy claim to court, a lawyer may file a pretrial motion to dismiss the charges. They may raise double jeopardy as a defense during a second trial. It could be used as a basis for filing an appeal of the convictions.

Trial judges are responsible for determining the validity of a double jeopardy claim. They review the defense attorney’s arguments and compare them to established constitutional and common law. They will also review the prosecutor’s actions to determine if they acted improperly. If a court finds a double jeopardy violation, all charges must be dismissed with prejudice. If a prosecutor intentionally causes a mistrial, a retrial may be barred. Judges may impose contempt charges or disciplinary actions against prosecutors violating double jeopardy rules. Some states allow defendants to sue for malicious prosecution if double jeopardy rights were intentionally ignored.

If the double jeopardy claim is brought during an appeal, the appellate courts will review any potential double jeopardy violations. In Burks v. United States, it was established that Double Jeopardy prevents a second prosecution of a defendant whose conviction was overturned on appeal for lack of evidence. Another case, Green v. United States, established the “implied acquittal” doctrine. This doctrine protected defendants from being retried for a greater offense at a new trial if they were previously convicted of a lesser included offense at the first trial and that conviction was overturned on appeal.

Double Jeopardy Criticisms

Some legal experts have expressed concerns about how double jeopardy is applied. Some critics argue that the separate sovereigns doctrine undermines double jeopardy. They propose limiting federal prosecution when a state has already tried the case. Other critics argue that double jeopardy exceptions should be broadened. They argue that serious crimes like terrorism and human rights violations should not have double jeopardy protections across jurisdictions.

Victim’s advocates add to this by claiming there should be broader retrial options after an acquittal. Some states have made proposals for double jeopardy protections. New York and California have proposed stricter bands on successive prosecutions than current federal standards. Congress has debated modifying the federal double jeopardy law to narrow the scope of separate sovereign prosecutions.

Find Legal Help

Double jeopardy is a fundamental safeguard in the U.S. legal system, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly prosecuted multiple times for the same offense. While the principle of double jeopardy remains a cornerstone of constitutional law, ongoing legal debates and Supreme Court rulings continue to shape its application. Legal complexities, such as the separate sovereign doctrine and mistrial exceptions, can impact how these protections apply in specific cases. If you are facing criminal charges or believe your rights have been violated, seeking experienced legal counsel is essential.

Visit the Super Lawyers directory to begin your se arch for an experienced criminal defense attorney.