Double Jeopardy
Double jeopardy is the legal term that describes being tried twice for the same offense. Considered a cornerstone of ideas on civilian rights since the 18th century, it is used throughout the world as a criminal defense, and is specifically prohibited in one way or another by the civil laws of many nations.
In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be put twice in jeopardy of life and limb.” Practically applied, this essentially guarantees that no one convicted or acquitted of a crime will be retried or face multiple punishments for the same offense.
If, for instance, a person has been tried and found innocent of a particular crime, he or she cannot be affected by any new developments in the case (in other words, he or she cannot be put on trial again even with additional evidence). It is thus a very strong deterrent for authorities against hasty imprisonment or arrest on flimsy grounds.
The idea of double jeopardy is of course complicated by issues of mistrial. When no verdict is reached due to a hung jury, grounds of perjury, or other impediments to the process of law, a second hearing of the same crime does not violate the amendment. In the eyes of the law, any time a judge or jury is compromised, the person in question cannot legally be considered “in jeopardy” to begin with.
Contact Us
While many people have heard the term, few realize just how double jeopardy affects their legal rights. For more information on this important defense and how it may help you in your criminal case, contact experienced Austin criminal defense lawyer Ian Inglis today by calling 512-472-1950.
The Ian Inglis web site is designed to provide educational information only and is not intended to offer legal advice. Information contained in this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with Ian Inglis on its own will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication.