admitting it after an acquittal

Not for the same charge if they've been acquitted.

Depends on which jurisdiction
They can be over here, especially if new evidence arises

waylander said:

Depends on which jurisdiction
They can be over here, especially if new evidence arises

Click to expand...

Yes, the first conviction under the amended double jeopardy law happened only the other day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

-cb

If it works for you for whatever story you're doing, there can still be a civil trial. That's what happened to O.J. Simpson; found not guilty in the criminal trial, but the family of the other victim won a civil verdict against him.

Torgo said:

Yes, the first conviction under the amended double jeopardy law happened only the other day.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you have a link? I'd like to read it out of curiosity.

defyalllogic said:

I'm talking about in America, sorry. and i understand double jeopardy. that's why I'm asking.

is an outright confession that they committed the crime a different circumstance though or if it's treated as discovery of new evidence (which cannot be used against the acquitted for the same of very similar charge)?

Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but I'd think if someone were to confess after acquittal, someone would find some sort of charge to stick them with instead.

Alpha Echo said:

I'm no expert, but I'd think if someone were to confess after acquittal, someone would find some sort of charge to stick them with instead.

Click to expand...

If they'd denied it on the stand you could probably stick them with a perjury charge.

defyalllogic said:

I'm talking about in America, sorry. and i understand double jeopardy. that's why I'm asking.

is an outright confession that they committed the crime a different circumstance though or if it's treated as discovery of new evidence (which cannot be used against the acquitted for the same of very similar charge)?

Click to expand...

Besides the technical issue of double jeopardy, you've got another problem if the person just admits they committed the crime. It's one thing to sign a confession or admit to a crime while they're being interviewed (and videotaped) by the police, it's another to just say something in a bar.

I'm not an attorney (nor do I play one on TV) but as far as I know you still can't be tried twice for the same crime in the US even if you shout "I did it!" on the rooftop. One of our attorney members can fill you in more completely.

The snippet of the Dunlop case posted above appears to indicate hung juries in previous trials. Hung juries do not create a double jeopordy problem.

Defy, what do you want to happen in your story?

If you want your character to be retried, you could have a prior hung jury. If you want your guy not to be retried, have him acquitted in the first trial---tho this part

you posted:
"if some one is acquitted (found not guilty not not proven)"
is at odds w/ reality. The verdict will merely be not guilty or guilty, never something like "not not proven".

If she was tried and acquitted of murder she cannot be reprosecuted for that crime under US law. She could be sued civilly or, if there is federal jurisdiction (like drugs etc, there isn't for plain murder) she could be tried in fed ct.
So, bottom line, she's free to talk about it.

Mark's answer is right, but there are a couple of exceptions that you need to understand. First off, as he points out, double jeopardy does not apply to a crime that is both state and federal. So if you're found not guilty by the Commonwealth, and you committed a federal crime (say a murder as part of an act of terrorism), the feds can then try you.

If you testified at trial, saying you didn't do it, as pointed out you would be charged with perjury. But further, any statements that the defendant made under oath would be looked at by a prosecutor in this type of situation.

If the defendant's statement opens up a new crime, or one that wasn't charged, the defendant can be prosecuted on that. Let's say the defendant and the victim got into a car accident. Police think the defendant was drunk, but weren't able to find the defendant until after he sobered up. Defendant after the accident shoots the victim. Jury doesn't believe the police and acquit.

Then the defendant gives an interview where the defendant admits to drinking at a bar all night long, would have broken the breathalyser he was so drunk. He can now be prosecuted for DWI, using his statement and the records from the bar.

This has happened.

And as happened to an attorney I know, the defendant, after the jury says, "Not guilty," says to his attorney loud enough to be heard by the judge, "You mean I fucking got away with it?" Judge sentenced him to a week in jail for contempt of court.

And as stated, it doesn't preclude a civil suit, with its lower standard of proof.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

Not necessarily. There is the option of trying them under different charges. I.E. Manslaughter instead of murder. If the cops want it bad enough, I have no doubt they will figure out some way to achieve that result.

defyalllogic said:

if some one is acquitted (found not guilty not not proven) and there is more evidence they can't be charged again. if the more evidence is that they admit to committing the crime dose that change things? can they be brought in and convicted now that they outright say they did the crime?

Thanks for your time!

Click to expand...

In the United States, no. It's called double jeopardy.

Charges can be brought for affiliated crimes. Such as, a person is found not guilty of murder by a jury, but during the trial, he was caught on tape making phone calls from the jail (most jail inmate phone calls are monitored and recorded) arranging for the murder of a key witness in the case against him.

Bingo. He may have walked on murder charges, but he's going to be charged now with witness intimidation, and a skilled prosecutor might be able to stack the deck with other charges if the defendant is a known gang member.

A determined prosecutor nailed a guy named Mel Ignatow for perjury and sent him to prison after a dim-witted jury acquitted him of the rape and torture of his ex-girlfriend. However, he was not charged with murder after the pictures he'd taken of the crime were discovered - he'd already been found not guilty. The Wikipedia page has some inaccuracies, but provides a basic overview of the case. Edited to add: Specifically, Ignow had testified at some point (either in a criminal trial or in a civil deposition, under oath) that he didn't kill his girlfriend. This was the legal means used to prosecute him for perjury. His cache of photos were discovered too late for the criminal trial, but the pictures proved beyond a doubt that he indeed had done terrible things to his girlfriend before he killed her.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow

defyalllogic said:

I think being acquitted of murder then tried for manslaughter is exactly double jeopardy. you can't be charged with similar charges for the same crime. then they could just run through all the variations of killing crimes until one stuck. you could have a dozen trials for the same crime. did she murder him? did she aggravated murder him? did she manslaughter him? did she murder him because she was careless? ... etc.

Click to expand...

Point taken.

I cant read all this, but if someone didn't say it: If you beat a murder charge and then say you did it, they'll get you for perjury if you testified.

If that's the case

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


However, you could first be tried by a local or state court, then by a federal court only if the crime rises to be a federal crime. A prosecutor can also bring it up in from of a grand jury a number of times. But the Fifth Amendment is one of the central pillars of the American justice system. It's very hard to get around and having the person admint that they committed the crime is NOT enough.

waylander said:

Depends on which jurisdiction
They can be over here, especially if new evidence arises

Click to expand...

same here.

people, especially murderers and terror suspects get retried all the time, usually when new evidence comes up.

Here at least, once a suspect, always a suspect it seems.

defyalllogic said:

so if she didn't take the stand or if she took the fifth or if she said she couldn't recall to every question and then after had a revelation...?

Click to expand...

She couldn't be compelled to take the stand, so if she decided not to there would be no perjury charge to pursue. I've read what you want to do, and I think you are safe to do it.

And you are right that after being acquitted of murder she couldn't be retried for manslaughter and on down the line, that would indeed be double jeopardy.