Double Jeopardy?
posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger
Perhaps Dan or Dan can help out a non-crimlaw guy here, because this just doesn’t make any sense to me. From CNN:
Lane insisted he was innocent for another decade and when he finally confessed to Salt Lake City police a few months ago, there was nothing the justice system could do. He had been tried and acquitted and under the “double jeopardy” provision of the U.S. Constitution could not be tried again.
So, not only did Watts find her baby murdered, not only did she stand by the man she later found out killed him, but now she also has to live knowing that he will never pay for his crime.
Is that really true? It sounds like the plot out of an Ashley Judd movie.
I’m at a bit of disavantage here — when I was a law student, my criminal law class covered very little black-letter criminal law. (We did spend a lot of time on ever-more complex self-defense hypotheticals, however). But I think I remember reading somewhere that new evidence of this sort can create some kind of exception to double jeopardy. (In this case, he lied at his first trial, but later confessed to the killing after he had been acquitted).
Is there any relevant exception to double jeopardy? To use another example: If 30 seconds post-verdict, O.J. had jumped over to a camera and yelled “haha, I did it, can’t bust me now!” — would we really be stuck with the verdict?
January 19, 2006 at 12:10 am
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
Responses (7)
John Jenkins - January 18, 2006 at 8:26 pm
You can get him for perjury now, but not for the murder. He’s already been tried and acquitted.
He was actually in jeopardy at the first trial: the jury could have found his testimony not credible and convicted him, but didn’t. Had he somehow rigged the trial so that he was never actually in jeopardy (jury tampering, bribery, etc.) then there is an exception, but I don’t think that would apply here.
KipEsquire - January 18, 2006 at 9:43 pm
England has abolished the double jeopardy rule in some circumstances.
Mike - January 18, 2006 at 10:33 pm
No applicable exception applies. Post-trial O.J. could indeed have screamed, “I did it!” and still walked away. The guy can only be prosecuted for perjury if the statute of limitation has not expired. (Which is unlikely.)
Milbarge - January 19, 2006 at 11:45 am
Again depending on the statute of limitations, there may be civil actions she could pursue against him (such as wrongful death). While that wouldn’t put him in jail, it could still ruin his life. Also, thanks to the “dual sovereignties” doctrine, he could prosecuted under applicable federal laws, such as a civil rights violation. (Example: the feds went after the cops in the Rodney King case after a state jury acquitted them.)
Hirbod Rashidi - January 19, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Nothing in the facts of Lane (at least as summarized above) says the defendant testified at trial. So I don’t see how he can even be prosecuted for perjury (same goes for O.J.; he never testified).
Hirbod Rashidi - January 19, 2006 at 6:37 pm
One more thought. Federal civil rights violation probably will not work either as the element of “under color of law” is missing. Koon and Powell (if I remember their names correctly) were convicted only because they were police officers who acting under color of law deprived King of his constitutional rights.
John Jenkins - January 19, 2006 at 8:21 pm
H.R., the summary includes this language, “n this case, he lied at his first trial, but later confessed to the killing after he had been acquitted.” Assuming that assertion from our summary is true, he definitely committed perjury but may not be chargeable due to the SoL (however I could make a case that the deception was ongoing and don’t know what the state of the law is on that question).
Leave a Reply