Comments on: Double Jeopardy? http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/double_jeopardy.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:59:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: John Jenkins http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/double_jeopardy.html/comment-page-1#comment-60838 John Jenkins Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:21:16 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/double-jeopardy.html#comment-60838 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). 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).

]]> By: Hirbod Rashidi http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/double_jeopardy.html/comment-page-1#comment-60837 Hirbod Rashidi Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:37:40 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/double-jeopardy.html#comment-60837 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. 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.

]]> By: Hirbod Rashidi http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/double_jeopardy.html/comment-page-1#comment-60836 Hirbod Rashidi Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:14:31 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/double-jeopardy.html#comment-60836 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). 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).

]]> By: Milbarge http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/double_jeopardy.html/comment-page-1#comment-60835 Milbarge Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:45:33 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/double-jeopardy.html#comment-60835 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.) 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.)

]]> By: Mike http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/double_jeopardy.html/comment-page-1#comment-60834 Mike Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:33:27 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/double-jeopardy.html#comment-60834 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.) 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.)

]]> By: KipEsquire http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/double_jeopardy.html/comment-page-1#comment-60833 KipEsquire Thu, 19 Jan 2006 04:43:16 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/double-jeopardy.html#comment-60833 England has <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1131815444.shtml" rel="nofollow">abolished the double jeopardy rule</a> in some circumstances. England has abolished the double jeopardy rule in some circumstances.

]]> By: John Jenkins http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/double_jeopardy.html/comment-page-1#comment-60832 John Jenkins Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:26:17 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/double-jeopardy.html#comment-60832 You can get him for perjury now, but not for the murder. He's already been tried and acquitted. He was actually <i>in jeopardy</i> 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. 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.

]]>