Double jeopardy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Mr Serjeant Buzfuz →Availability as a legal defence: removed quote that is specific to US constitution. As this is an article dealing with criminal procedure generally, should not use US terminology as if it is generally used. |
imported>Mr Serjeant Buzfuz “Try” here is the process of trying à person for an offence; necessary step before punishment. |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{Criminal procedure (trial)}} | {{Criminal procedure (trial)}} | ||
In [[jurisprudence]], '''double jeopardy''' is a [[procedural defence]]<!-- please do not alter to "defense" – this article uses British spelling --> (primarily in [[common law]] jurisdictions) that prevents an accused person from being [[Trial|tried]] again on the same | In [[jurisprudence]], '''double jeopardy''' is a [[procedural defence]]<!-- please do not alter to "defense" – this article uses British spelling --> (primarily in [[common law]] jurisdictions) that prevents an accused person from being [[Trial|tried]] again on the same or similar charges following an [[acquittal]] or [[conviction]]. Double jeopardy is a common concept in [[criminal law]] – in [[Civil law (common law)|civil law]], a similar concept is that of {{lang|la|[[res judicata]]}}. | ||
A variation in | A variation in common law countries is the [[peremptory plea]], which may take the specific forms of {{lang|fr|autrefois acquit}} ('previously acquitted') or {{lang|fr|autrefois convict}} ('previously convicted'). These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient [[Roman law]], in the broader principle {{lang|la|[[non bis in idem]]}} ('not twice against the same').<ref>{{cite book |last=Buckland |first=W. W. |title=A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian |url=https://archive.org/details/textbookofromanl0000buck |url-access=registration |edition=3 |date=1963 |location=Cambridge |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |pages=[https://archive.org/details/textbookofromanl0000buck/page/695 695–6] }}</ref> | ||
== Availability as a legal defence == | == Availability as a legal defence == | ||
If a double jeopardy issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will typically rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, certain exemptions are permitted. In Scotland, a new trial can be initiated if, for example, the acquitted has made a credible admission of guilt. Part of English law for over 800 years, it was partially abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]] where, following demand for change, serious offences may be re-tried following an acquittal if new and compelling evidence is found, and if the trial is found to be in the public's interest.<ref name="Weir"/> In some countries, including Canada, Mexico, and the United States, the guarantee against double jeopardy is a constitutional right.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html |title=Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160110221331/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html |archive-date=10 January 2016}}, s 11 (h), Part I of the ''Constitution Act, 1982'', being Schedule B to the ''Canada Act 1982'' (UK), 1982, c 11</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html |title=U.S. Constitution|date=30 October 2015}} Amend. V.</ref> In other countries, the protection is afforded by [[statute]].{{efn|For example, in Western Australia: "It is a defence to a charge of any offence to show that the accused person has already been tried, and convicted or acquitted upon an indictment or prosecution notice on which he might have been convicted of the offence with which he is charged, or has already been convicted or acquitted of an offence of which he might be convicted upon the indictment or prosecution notice on which he is charged."{{mdash}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ccaca1913252/|title=Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913, Appendix B, Sch "The Criminal Code" s 17(1)}}</ref>}} | |||
In common law countries, a defendant may enter a [[peremptory plea]] of {{lang|la|autrefois acquit}} ('previously acquitted') or {{lang|fr|autrefois convict}} ('previously convicted'), with the same effect.<ref name="Benét1864p97">{{cite book |title=A Treatise on Military Law and the Practice of Courts-martial |last=Benét |first=Stephen Vincent |date=1864 |page=[https://archive.org/details/cu31924030743268/page/n102 97] |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Gq00AAAAIAAJ }}</ref>{{efn|The terminology apparently derived from [[Law French]], and is a mixture of French {{lang|fr|autrefois}} 'at another time [in the past]' and borrowed-English [[loanword]]s.<ref>{{cite book|title=A History of English Law |last=Holdsworth |first=Sir William |location=London |publisher=Methuen and Sweet & Maxwell |date=1942 |edition=5 |volume=3 |pages=611, 614}}</ref>}} | |||
Double jeopardy is not a principle of [[international law]]. It does not apply between different countries, unless having been contractually agreed on between those countries as, for example, in the [[European Union]] (Art. 54 [[Schengen Agreement|Schengen Convention]]), and in various [[extradition treaties]] between two countries. | Double jeopardy is not a principle of [[international law]]. It does not apply between different countries, unless having been contractually agreed on between those countries as, for example, in the [[European Union]] (Art. 54 [[Schengen Agreement|Schengen Convention]]), and in various [[extradition treaties]] between two countries. | ||
| Line 61: | Line 60: | ||
=== Canada === | === Canada === | ||
{{Unreferenced section|date=September 2025}} | |||
The [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] includes provisions such as [[Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 11(h)]] prohibiting double jeopardy. However, the prohibition only applies after an accused person has been "finally" convicted or acquitted. [[Canadian law]] allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal based on legal errors. In rare circumstances, when a trial judge made all the factual findings necessary for a finding of guilt but misapplied the law, a [[court of appeal]] might also directly substitute an acquittal for a conviction. These cases are not considered double jeopardy because the appeal and the subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial. | The [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] includes provisions such as [[Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 11(h)]] prohibiting double jeopardy. However, the prohibition only applies after an accused person has been "finally" convicted or acquitted. [[Canadian law]] allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal based on legal errors. In rare circumstances, when a trial judge made all the factual findings necessary for a finding of guilt but misapplied the law, a [[court of appeal]] might also directly substitute an acquittal for a conviction. These cases are not considered double jeopardy because the appeal and the subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial. | ||
For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] requires the [[Crown | For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] requires the [[Crown attorney|Crown prosecutor]] to show that an error in law was made during the trial and that it contributed to the verdict. It has been argued that this test is unfairly beneficial to the prosecution. For instance, in his book ''My Life in Crime and Other Academic Adventures'', [[Martin Friedland]] contends that the rule should be changed so that a retrial is granted only when the error is shown to be ''responsible'' for the verdict, not just a factor. | ||
Though the charter permits appeals of acquittals, there are still constitutional limits imposed on the scope of these appeals. In ''Corp. Professionnelle des Médecins v. Thibault'', the Supreme Court struck down a provision of [[Quebec]] law that allowed [[appellate court]]s to conduct a [[Standard of review#De novo|''de novo'']] review of both legal and factual findings. In doing so, it held that the scope of an appeal may not extend to challenging findings of fact where no legal error has been made. At this point, the court reasoned, the process ceases to be an appeal and instead becomes a new trial disguised as one. | Though the charter permits appeals of acquittals, there are still constitutional limits imposed on the scope of these appeals. In ''Corp. Professionnelle des Médecins v. Thibault'', the Supreme Court struck down a provision of [[Quebec]] law that allowed [[appellate court]]s to conduct a [[Standard of review#De novo|''de novo'']] review of both legal and factual findings. In doing so, it held that the scope of an appeal may not extend to challenging findings of fact where no legal error has been made. At this point, the court reasoned, the process ceases to be an appeal and instead becomes a new trial disguised as one. | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
In the Netherlands, the state prosecution can appeal a not-guilty verdict at the bench. New evidence can be applied during a retrial at a [[Judiciary of the Netherlands#District Courts|district court]]. Thus one can be tried twice for the same alleged crime. If one is convicted at the district court, the defence can make an appeal on procedural grounds to the supreme court. The supreme court might admit this complaint, and the case will be reopened yet again, at another district court. Again, new evidence might be introduced by the prosecution. | In the Netherlands, the state prosecution can appeal a not-guilty verdict at the bench. New evidence can be applied during a retrial at a [[Judiciary of the Netherlands#District Courts|district court]]. Thus one can be tried twice for the same alleged crime. If one is convicted at the district court, the defence can make an appeal on procedural grounds to the supreme court. The supreme court might admit this complaint, and the case will be reopened yet again, at another district court. Again, new evidence might be introduced by the prosecution. | ||
On 9 April 2013, the Dutch senate voted 36 "yes" versus 35 "no" in favour of a new law that allows the prosecutor to re-try a person who was found not guilty in court.<ref>https://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20130409/voortzetting_behandeling_en/document3/f=/vj919lm102x5.pdf | On 9 April 2013, the Dutch senate voted 36 "yes" versus 35 "no" in favour of a new law that allows the prosecutor to re-try a person who was found not guilty in court.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20130409/voortzetting_behandeling_en/document3/f=/vj919lm102x5.pdf |title=Wet herziening ten nadele |trans-title=Adverse Review Act |website=eerstekamer.nl |date=9 April 2013 |language=nl |access-date=15 August 2025}}</ref> This law is limited to offences in which the statute of limitations does not expire. These are offences that are punishable by at least 12 years of imprisonment, and other specific offences.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://maxius.nl/wetboek-van-strafrecht/artikel70|title=Artikel 70 Wetboek van Strafrecht |language=nl |trans-title=Article 70 of the Criminal Code |website=maxius.nl |date=20 April 2016 |access-date=15 August 2025}}</ref> Offences that have already expired (such as prior to the change in legislation that abolished the statute of limitations) cannot be retried. | ||
A retrial is only possible by ground of a 'novum': the situation in which new evidence has come to light and in which it seems that, had the judge known of this evidence, the defendant would have been prosecuted. The new evidence has to either be new technical evidence or a trustworthy confession by the defendant or their co-suspect.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/32044_wet_herziening_ten_nadele|title=Wet herziening ten nadele (32.044)|website= | A retrial is only possible by ground of a 'novum': the situation in which new evidence has come to light and in which it seems that, had the judge known of this evidence, the defendant would have been prosecuted. The new evidence has to either be new technical evidence or a trustworthy confession by the defendant or their co-suspect.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/32044_wet_herziening_ten_nadele|title=Wet herziening ten nadele (32.044) |language=nl |trans-title=Adverse Review Act (32.044) |website=eerstekamer.nl |date=1 September 2009 |access-date=15 August 2025}}</ref> | ||
=== Pakistan === | === Pakistan === | ||
| Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
===== Pre-2003 ===== | ===== Pre-2003 ===== | ||
The doctrines of ''[[Peremptory plea|autrefois acquit]]'' and ''autrefois convict'' persisted as part of the common law from the time of the [[Norman conquest of England]]; they were regarded as essential elements for protection of the subject's liberty and respect for [[due process]] of law in that there should be finality of proceedings.<ref name="Benét1864p97" /> There were only three exceptions, all relatively recent, to the rules: | |||
The doctrines of ''[[Peremptory plea|autrefois acquit]]'' and ''autrefois convict'' persisted as part of the | |||
* The prosecution has a right of appeal against acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.<ref>Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 ss.28, 111; Supreme Court Act 1981 s.28</ref> | * The prosecution has a right of appeal against acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.<ref>Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 ss.28, 111; Supreme Court Act 1981 s.28</ref> | ||
| Line 167: | Line 166: | ||
===== Post-2003 ===== | ===== Post-2003 ===== | ||
Following the [[murder of Stephen Lawrence]], the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be [[Repeal|abrogated]] in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light. The [[Law Commission]] later added its support to this in its report "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" (2001). A parallel report into the [[criminal justice system]] by [[Robin Auld|Lord Justice Auld]], a past [[Senior Presiding Judge]] for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report six months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that "the exceptions should [...] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify."<ref>{{cite web|title=A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales by The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld |url=http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ |archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090607141016/http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=7 June 2009 |access-date=5 January 2012 |date=September 2001 }}</ref> 1999 was also the year of a highly publicised case in which a man, [[David Smith (murderer)|David Smith]], was convicted of the murder of a [[prostitute]] after having been acquitted of the "almost identical"<ref name="BBC1999">{{cite news |title=Prostitute murderer gets life |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/552350.stm |access-date=20 April 2022 |publisher=BBC News |date=8 December 1999}}</ref> murder of sex worker Sarah Crump six years previously.<ref name="BBC2">{{cite news |title=Killer beat earlier murder charge |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/556081.stm |access-date=20 April 2022 |publisher=BBC News |date=8 December 1999}}</ref><ref name="BBC1999"/><ref name="Herald">{{cite news |title=Police probe killer sadist Life for lorry driver who was cleared of carbon-copy murder of prostitute in 1993 |url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12203896.police-probe-killer-sadist-life-for-lorry-driver-who-was-cleared-of-carbon-copy-murder-of-prostitute-in-1993/ |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=HeraldScotland |date=9 December 1999}}</ref> Because of the double jeopardy laws that existed at the time, Smith could not be re-tried for Crump's murder, despite police insisting they were not looking for anybody else and that the case was closed.<ref name="Telegraph">{{cite news |last1=Hope |first1=Christopher |title=David Smith's size 14 feet could link him to three more murders |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3525337/David-Smiths-size-14-feet-could-link-him-to-three-more-murders.html |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=The Telegraph |date=28 November 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Widdup |first1=Ellen |title='Bigfoot' print may link killer to vice girl deaths |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/bigfoot-print-may-link-killer-to-vice-girl-deaths-6831350.html |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=Evening Standard|location=London |date=13 April 2012}}</ref><ref name="BBC2"/><ref name="BBC1999"/>{{efn|Following the 2003 reforms, Smith's acquittal for murdering Crump was overturned in 2023 and he was tried and convicted.<ref>{{cite news |title=Ripper-style killer found guilty of Southall sex worker murder 30 years after being cleared of crime |url=https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-05-24/ripper-style-killer-guilty-of-murder-30-years-after-being-cleared-of-crime |access-date=24 May 2023 |work=ITV News |date=24 May 2023}}</ref>}} | Following the [[murder of Stephen Lawrence]], the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be [[Repeal|abrogated]] in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light. The [[Law Commission]] later added its support to this in its report "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" (2001). A parallel report into the [[criminal justice system]] by [[Robin Auld (judge)|Lord Justice Auld]], a past [[Senior Presiding Judge]] for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report six months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that "the exceptions should [...] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify."<ref>{{cite web|title=A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales by The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld |url=http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ |archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090607141016/http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=7 June 2009 |access-date=5 January 2012 |date=September 2001 }}</ref> 1999 was also the year of a highly publicised case in which a man, [[David Smith (murderer)|David Smith]], was convicted of the murder of a [[prostitute]] after having been acquitted of the "almost identical"<ref name="BBC1999">{{cite news |title=Prostitute murderer gets life |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/552350.stm |access-date=20 April 2022 |publisher=BBC News |date=8 December 1999}}</ref> murder of sex worker Sarah Crump six years previously.<ref name="BBC2">{{cite news |title=Killer beat earlier murder charge |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/556081.stm |access-date=20 April 2022 |publisher=BBC News |date=8 December 1999}}</ref><ref name="BBC1999"/><ref name="Herald">{{cite news |title=Police probe killer sadist Life for lorry driver who was cleared of carbon-copy murder of prostitute in 1993 |url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12203896.police-probe-killer-sadist-life-for-lorry-driver-who-was-cleared-of-carbon-copy-murder-of-prostitute-in-1993/ |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=HeraldScotland |date=9 December 1999}}</ref> Because of the double jeopardy laws that existed at the time, Smith could not be re-tried for Crump's murder, despite police insisting they were not looking for anybody else and that the case was closed.<ref name="Telegraph">{{cite news |last1=Hope |first1=Christopher |title=David Smith's size 14 feet could link him to three more murders |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3525337/David-Smiths-size-14-feet-could-link-him-to-three-more-murders.html |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=The Telegraph |date=28 November 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Widdup |first1=Ellen |title='Bigfoot' print may link killer to vice girl deaths |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/bigfoot-print-may-link-killer-to-vice-girl-deaths-6831350.html |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=Evening Standard|location=London |date=13 April 2012}}</ref><ref name="BBC2"/><ref name="BBC1999"/>{{efn|Following the 2003 reforms, Smith's acquittal for murdering Crump was overturned in 2023 and he was tried and convicted.<ref>{{cite news |title=Ripper-style killer found guilty of Southall sex worker murder 30 years after being cleared of crime |url=https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-05-24/ripper-style-killer-guilty-of-murder-30-years-after-being-cleared-of-crime |access-date=24 May 2023 |work=ITV News |date=24 May 2023}}</ref>}} | ||
Both [[Jack Straw]] (then [[Home Secretary]]) and [[William Hague]] (then [[Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)|Leader of the Opposition]]) favoured the measures suggested by the Auld Report.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1373237/Straw-moves-to-scrap-Magna-Carta-double-jeopardy-law.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1373237/Straw-moves-to-scrap-Magna-Carta-double-jeopardy-law.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Straw moves to scrap Magna Carta double jeopardy law |date=5 November 2000|newspaper=The Telegraph|access-date=13 October 2014}}{{cbignore}}</ref> These recommendations were implemented—not uncontroversially at the time—within the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Broadbridge |first=Sally |title=Research paper 02/74: The Criminal Justice Bill: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals |url=http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf |publisher=UK parliament |access-date=5 January 2012 |date=2 December 2002 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061120235713/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf |archive-date=20 November 2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/part/10/enacted |title=Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) Part 10: Retrial for serious offences |publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office |date=20 November 2003 |access-date=5 June 2014 }}</ref> and this provision came into force in April 2005.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4406129.stm Double jeopardy law ushered out], BBC News. 3 April 2005</ref> It opened certain serious crimes (including murder, [[manslaughter]], [[kidnapping]], [[rape]], [[robbery|armed robbery]], and serious [[Drug-related crime|drug crimes]]) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the [[retrial]] must be approved by the [[Director of Public Prosecutions (England and Wales)|Director of Public Prosecutions]], and the [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080915092707/http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section19/chapter_j.html Retrial of Serious Offences]. The CPS. Retrieved on 2 January 2012.</ref> Then Director of Public Prosecutions, [[Ken Macdonald]] [[Queen's Counsel|QC]], said that he expected no more than a handful of cases to be brought in a year.<ref name="ming"/> | Both [[Jack Straw]] (then [[Home Secretary]]) and [[William Hague]] (then [[Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)|Leader of the Opposition]]) favoured the measures suggested by the Auld Report.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1373237/Straw-moves-to-scrap-Magna-Carta-double-jeopardy-law.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1373237/Straw-moves-to-scrap-Magna-Carta-double-jeopardy-law.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Straw moves to scrap Magna Carta double jeopardy law |date=5 November 2000|newspaper=The Telegraph|access-date=13 October 2014}}{{cbignore}}</ref> These recommendations were implemented—not uncontroversially at the time—within the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Broadbridge |first=Sally |title=Research paper 02/74: The Criminal Justice Bill: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals |url=http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf |publisher=UK parliament |access-date=5 January 2012 |date=2 December 2002 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061120235713/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf |archive-date=20 November 2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/part/10/enacted |title=Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) Part 10: Retrial for serious offences |publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office |date=20 November 2003 |access-date=5 June 2014 }}</ref> and this provision came into force in April 2005.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4406129.stm Double jeopardy law ushered out], BBC News. 3 April 2005</ref> It opened certain serious crimes (including murder, [[manslaughter]], [[kidnapping]], [[rape]], [[robbery|armed robbery]], and serious [[Drug-related crime|drug crimes]]) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the [[retrial]] must be approved by the [[Director of Public Prosecutions (England and Wales)|Director of Public Prosecutions]], and the [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080915092707/http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section19/chapter_j.html Retrial of Serious Offences]. The CPS. Retrieved on 2 January 2012.</ref> Then Director of Public Prosecutions, [[Ken Macdonald]] [[Queen's Counsel|QC]], said that he expected no more than a handful of cases to be brought in a year.<ref name="ming"/> | ||
Pressure by Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, Billy Dunlop, was initially acquitted and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the demand for legal change.<ref name="ming">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5150346.stm Murder conviction is legal first], BBC News. 11 September 2006</ref> On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Hogg's murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of [[perjury]], but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal, in November 2005, for permission for a new trial, which was granted.<ref name="ming" /><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4426038.stm Man faces double jeopardy retrial], BBC News. 10 November 2005</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5333230.stm The law of 'double jeopardy'], BBC News. 11 September 2006</ref> Dunlop pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5412264.stm Double jeopardy man is given life], BBC News. 6 October 2006</ref> | Pressure by [[Ann Ming]], the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, Billy Dunlop, was initially acquitted and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the demand for legal change.<ref name="ming">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5150346.stm Murder conviction is legal first], BBC News. 11 September 2006</ref> On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Hogg's murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of [[perjury]], but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal, in November 2005, for permission for a new trial, which was granted.<ref name="ming" /><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4426038.stm Man faces double jeopardy retrial], BBC News. 10 November 2005</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5333230.stm The law of 'double jeopardy'], BBC News. 11 September 2006</ref> Dunlop pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5412264.stm Double jeopardy man is given life], BBC News. 6 October 2006</ref> | ||
On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be retried and found guilty of murder by a jury (Dunlop having | On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be retried and found guilty of murder by a jury (Dunlop having pleaded guilty). In 1996 Weston had been acquitted of the murder of Vikki Thompson at [[Ascott-under-Wychwood]] on 12 August 1995, but following the discovery in 2009 of compelling new evidence (Thompson's blood on Weston's boots) he was arrested and tried for a second time. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 13 years.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-11982681 |title='Double jeopardy' man guilty of Vikki Thompson murder |date=13 December 2010 |publisher=BBC News Oxford |access-date=13 December 2010 }}</ref> | ||
In December 2018, convicted paedophile [[Russell Bishop (murderer)|Russell Bishop]] was also retried and found guilty by a jury for the [[Babes in the Wood murders (Wild Park)|Babes in the Wood murders]] of two 9-year-old girls, Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway, on 9 October 1986. At the original trial in 1987, a key piece of the prosecution's case rested on the recovery of a discarded blue sweatshirt. Under questioning, Bishop denied that the sweatshirt belonged to him, but his girlfriend, Jennifer Johnson, alleged the clothing was Bishop's, before she changed her story in the trial, telling the jury she had never seen the top before.<ref name="Bishop">{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/10/russell-bishop-guilty-babes-wood-murders/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/10/russell-bishop-guilty-babes-wood-murders/ |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Babes in the Wood murders: after the police blunders and killer's deceit, how justice caught up with Russell Bishop, 32 years on|last1=Evans|first1=Martin|date=10 December 2018|newspaper=The Telegraph|access-date=10 December 2018|last2=Sawer|first2=Patrick|issn=0307-1235}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Attributed to a series of blunders in the prosecution's case, Bishop was acquitted by the jury after two hours of deliberations.<ref name="Bishop"/> Three years later, Bishop was found guilty of the abduction, molestation, and attempted murder of a 7-year-old girl in February 1990.<ref name="Quinn"/> In 2014, re-examined by modern forensics, the sweatshirt contained traces of Bishop's DNA, and also had fibres on it from both of the girls' clothing.<ref name="Quinn"/> Tapings taken from Karen Hadaway's arm also yielded traces of Bishop's DNA.<ref name="Quinn">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/10/man-found-guilty-of-1986-brighton-babes-in-the-wood-murders-karen-hadaway-nicola-fellows|title=Man found guilty of 1986 Brighton 'babes in the wood' murders|last=Quinn|first=Ben|date=10 December 2018|newspaper=The Guardian|location=London|access-date=10 December 2018|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> At the 2018 trial, a jury of seven men and five women returned a guilty verdict after two-and-a-half hours of deliberation.<ref name="Bishop"/><ref name="Quinn"/> | In December 2018, convicted paedophile [[Russell Bishop (murderer)|Russell Bishop]] was also retried and found guilty by a jury for the [[Babes in the Wood murders (Wild Park)|Babes in the Wood murders]] of two 9-year-old girls, Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway, on 9 October 1986. At the original trial in 1987, a key piece of the prosecution's case rested on the recovery of a discarded blue sweatshirt. Under questioning, Bishop denied that the sweatshirt belonged to him, but his girlfriend, Jennifer Johnson, alleged the clothing was Bishop's, before she changed her story in the trial, telling the jury she had never seen the top before.<ref name="Bishop">{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/10/russell-bishop-guilty-babes-wood-murders/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/10/russell-bishop-guilty-babes-wood-murders/ |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Babes in the Wood murders: after the police blunders and killer's deceit, how justice caught up with Russell Bishop, 32 years on|last1=Evans|first1=Martin|date=10 December 2018|newspaper=The Telegraph|access-date=10 December 2018|last2=Sawer|first2=Patrick|issn=0307-1235}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Attributed to a series of blunders in the prosecution's case, Bishop was acquitted by the jury after two hours of deliberations.<ref name="Bishop"/> Three years later, Bishop was found guilty of the abduction, molestation, and attempted murder of a 7-year-old girl in February 1990.<ref name="Quinn"/> In 2014, re-examined by modern forensics, the sweatshirt contained traces of Bishop's DNA, and also had fibres on it from both of the girls' clothing.<ref name="Quinn"/> Tapings taken from Karen Hadaway's arm also yielded traces of Bishop's DNA.<ref name="Quinn">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/10/man-found-guilty-of-1986-brighton-babes-in-the-wood-murders-karen-hadaway-nicola-fellows|title=Man found guilty of 1986 Brighton 'babes in the wood' murders|last=Quinn|first=Ben|date=10 December 2018|newspaper=The Guardian|location=London|access-date=10 December 2018|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> At the 2018 trial, a jury of seven men and five women returned a guilty verdict after two-and-a-half hours of deliberation.<ref name="Bishop"/><ref name="Quinn"/> | ||
| Line 186: | Line 185: | ||
==== Northern Ireland ==== | ==== Northern Ireland ==== | ||
In [[Northern Ireland]], the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]], effective 18 April 2005,<ref>[http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=11277 "Commencement of Provisions – Criminal Justice Act of 2003,"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928112743/http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=11277 |date=28 September 2011 }} Northern Ireland Office.</ref> makes certain "qualifying offence" (including murder, rape, kidnapping, specified sexual acts with young children, specified drug offences, defined acts of terrorism, as well as in certain cases attempts or conspiracies to commit the foregoing)<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_32#sch5 Schedule 5 Part 2] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702233813/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_32#sch5 |date=2 July 2010 }} of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003.</ref> subject to retrial after acquittal (including acquittals obtained before passage of the Act) if there is a finding by the Court of Appeal that there is "new and compelling evidence".<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_10#pt10 "Retrial for serious offences,"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100123041757/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_10#pt10 |date=23 January 2010 }} Part 10 of Criminal Justice Act of 2003.</ref> | In [[Northern Ireland]], the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]], effective 18 April 2005,<ref>[http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=11277 "Commencement of Provisions – Criminal Justice Act of 2003,"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928112743/http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=11277 |date=28 September 2011 }} Northern Ireland Office.</ref> makes certain "qualifying offence" (including murder, rape, kidnapping, specified sexual acts with young children, specified drug offences, defined acts of terrorism, as well as in certain cases attempts or conspiracies to commit the foregoing)<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_32#sch5 Schedule 5 Part 2] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702233813/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_32#sch5 |date=2 July 2010 }} of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003.</ref> subject to retrial after acquittal (including acquittals obtained before passage of the Act) if there is a finding by the Court of Appeal that there is "new and compelling evidence".<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_10#pt10 "Retrial for serious offences,"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100123041757/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_10#pt10 |date=23 January 2010 }} Part 10 of Criminal Justice Act of 2003.</ref> | ||
=== United States === | === United States === | ||
In the United States, the protection in | In the United States, the protection in common law against double jeopardy is maintained through the [[Double Jeopardy Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment to the Constitution]], which provides: | ||
{{blockquote|... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ...<ref name="fifth amendment double jeopardy">{{cite book |last=Harper |first=Timothy |title=The Complete Idiot's Guide to the U.S. Constitution |publisher=Penguin Group |date=2 October 2007 |page=109 |isbn=978-1-59257-627-2 |quote= However, the Fifth Amendment contains several other important provisions for protecting your rights. It is the source of the double jeopardy doctrine, which prevents authorities from trying a person twice for the same crime ...}}</ref>}} | {{blockquote|... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ...<ref name="fifth amendment double jeopardy">{{cite book |last=Harper |first=Timothy |title=The Complete Idiot's Guide to the U.S. Constitution |publisher=Penguin Group |date=2 October 2007 |page=109 |isbn=978-1-59257-627-2 |quote= However, the Fifth Amendment contains several other important provisions for protecting your rights. It is the source of the double jeopardy doctrine, which prevents authorities from trying a person twice for the same crime ...}}</ref>}} | ||
| Line 197: | Line 195: | ||
As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[United States v. Ball|Ball v. United States]]'' 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial".<ref name=USvBall>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. Ball |vol=163 |opinion= 662 |date=1896 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/662/case.html |access-date=2 May 2018 }}</ref> <!-- Included this quote so that the reader will know why it's called "double jeopardy" --> The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.<ref>''[[North Carolina v. Pearce]]'', {{Ussc|395|711|1969}}.</ref> Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is impanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted.<ref>''[[Crist v. Bretz]]'', {{Ussc|437|28|1978}}.</ref> | As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[United States v. Ball|Ball v. United States]]'' 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial".<ref name=USvBall>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. Ball |vol=163 |opinion= 662 |date=1896 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/662/case.html |access-date=2 May 2018 }}</ref> <!-- Included this quote so that the reader will know why it's called "double jeopardy" --> The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.<ref>''[[North Carolina v. Pearce]]'', {{Ussc|395|711|1969}}.</ref> Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is impanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted.<ref>''[[Crist v. Bretz]]'', {{Ussc|437|28|1978}}.</ref> | ||
In rare cases, double jeopardy may also apply to [[Prosecutorial misconduct|prosecutorial]] or [[Judicial misconduct|judge misconduct]] in the same [[jurisdiction]].<ref name=historyOf5>{{cite journal |title=A Brief History of the Fifth Amendment Guarantee Against Double Jeopardy |first=David S. |last=Rudstein |url=http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1209&context=wmborj |date=2005 |journal=William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal |volume=14 |issue=1}}</ref> The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions bars only an identical prosecution for the same offence; however, a different offence may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. {{lang|la|Res judicata}} protection is stronger – it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.<ref>D Nimmer (1981). [https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/double-jeopardy-clause-bar-reintroducing-evidence-criminal-law#1-0 Double Jeopardy Clause as a Bar to Reintroducing Evidence] (From Criminal Law Review, 1981, P 301-320, James G Carr, ed.).</ref> | |||
==== Prosecution after acquittal ==== | ==== Prosecution after acquittal ==== | ||
With two exceptions, the government is not permitted to appeal or retry the defendant once jeopardy attaches to a trial unless the case does not conclude. Conditions which constitute "conclusion" of a case include | With two exceptions, the government is not permitted to appeal or retry the defendant once jeopardy attaches to a trial unless the case does not conclude. Conditions which constitute "conclusion" of a case include | ||
* After the entry of an acquittal, whether: | * After the entry of an acquittal, whether: | ||
** an acquittal by jury verdict | ** an acquittal by jury verdict | ||
| Line 217: | Line 215: | ||
==== Exceptions ==== | ==== Exceptions ==== | ||
There are two exceptions to bans on retrying defendants. If a defendant bribed a judge into acquitting him or her, the defendant was not in jeopardy and can be retried.<ref>{{Cite court|litigants=[[Aleman v. Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County]]|vol=138|reporter=F.3d|opinion=302|court=7th Cir.|date=1998|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12470920553407736097&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006|access-date=7 September 2019}}</ref> A member of the armed forces can be retried by [[court-martial]] in a military court, even if he or she has been previously acquitted by a civilian court.<ref>{{cite web|author=SBM Blog |url=http://sbmblog.typepad.com/sbm-blog/2012/02/double-jeopardy-and-the-military-a-lurid-case-in-point.html |title=Double Jeopardy and the Military: A Sensational Case in Point – SBM Blog |publisher=Sbmblog.typepad.com |date=14 November 2011 |access-date=14 May 2012}}</ref> This exception was used to prosecute Timothy Hennis for the [[Eastburn family murders]] after his previous trial acquitted him.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/18/us/death-row-stories-hennis/index.html|title=Triple murder suspect goes from guilty to innocent and back to guilty|publisher=CNN|date=18 July 2014|last=Patterson|first=Thom}}</ref> | There are two exceptions to bans on retrying defendants. If a defendant bribed a judge into acquitting him or her, the defendant was not in jeopardy and can be retried.<ref>{{Cite court |litigants=[[Aleman v. Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County]] |vol=138 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=302 |court=7th Cir. |date=1998 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12470920553407736097&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006 |access-date=7 September 2019}}</ref> A member of the armed forces can be retried by [[court-martial]] in a military court, even if he or she has been previously acquitted by a civilian court.<ref>{{cite web |author=SBM Blog |url=http://sbmblog.typepad.com/sbm-blog/2012/02/double-jeopardy-and-the-military-a-lurid-case-in-point.html |title=Double Jeopardy and the Military: A Sensational Case in Point – SBM Blog |publisher=Sbmblog.typepad.com |date=14 November 2011 |access-date=14 May 2012}}</ref> This exception was used to prosecute Timothy Hennis for the [[Eastburn family murders]] after his previous trial acquitted him.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/18/us/death-row-stories-hennis/index.html |title=Triple murder suspect goes from guilty to innocent and back to guilty |publisher=CNN |date=18 July 2014 |last=Patterson |first=Thom}}</ref> | ||
An individual can be prosecuted by both the United States and an [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States#Tribal state relations: sovereign within a sovereign|Indian tribe]] for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions; it was established by the Supreme Court in ''[[United States v. Lara]]'' that as the two are separate sovereigns, prosecuting a crime under both tribal and federal law does not attach double jeopardy.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/united-states-v-lara-brief-merits|title=United States v. Lara – Brief (Merits)|date=21 October 2014|website=justice.gov|access-date=5 March 2020}}</ref> | An individual can be prosecuted by both the United States and an [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States#Tribal state relations: sovereign within a sovereign|Indian tribe]] for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions; it was established by the Supreme Court in ''[[United States v. Lara]]'' that as the two are separate sovereigns, prosecuting a crime under both tribal and federal law does not attach double jeopardy.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/united-states-v-lara-brief-merits |title=United States v. Lara – Brief (Merits) |date=21 October 2014 |website=justice.gov |access-date=5 March 2020}}</ref> | ||
==== Multiple punishment, including prosecution after conviction ==== | ==== Multiple punishment, including prosecution after conviction ==== | ||
In ''[[Blockburger v. United States]]'' (1932), the Supreme Court announced the following test: the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not.<ref>''[[Blockburger v. United States]]'', {{Ussc|284|299|1932}} See, e.g., ''[[Brown v. Ohio]]'', {{Ussc|432|161|1977}}.</ref> ''Blockburger'' is the default rule, unless the governing statute legislatively intends to depart; for example, [[Continuing Criminal Enterprise]] (CCE) may be punished separately from its predicates,<ref>''[[Garrett v. United States]]'', {{Ussc|471|773|1985}}.</ref><ref>''[[Rutledge v. United States]],'' {{Ussc|517|292|1996}}.</ref> as can conspiracy.<ref>''[[United States v. Felix]]'', {{Ussc|503|378|1992}}.</ref> | In ''[[Blockburger v. United States]]'' (1932), the Supreme Court announced the following test: the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not.<ref>''[[Blockburger v. United States]]'', {{Ussc|284|299|1932}} See, e.g., ''[[Brown v. Ohio]]'', {{Ussc|432|161|1977}}.</ref> ''Blockburger'' is the default rule, unless the governing statute legislatively intends to depart; for example, [[Continuing Criminal Enterprise]] (CCE) may be punished separately from its predicates,<ref>''[[Garrett v. United States]]'', {{Ussc|471|773|1985}}.</ref><ref>''[[Rutledge v. United States]],'' {{Ussc|517|292|1996}}.</ref> as can conspiracy.<ref>''[[United States v. Felix]]'', {{Ussc|503|378|1992}}.</ref> | ||
| Line 228: | Line 225: | ||
==== Prosecution after mistrial ==== | ==== Prosecution after mistrial ==== | ||
The rule for [[mistrial]]s depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad faith", i.e. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial because the government specifically wanted a mistrial.<ref>''[[Oregon v. Kennedy]]'', {{Ussc|456|667|1982}}.</ref> If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial.<ref>''[[Arizona v. Washington]]'', {{Ussc|434|497|1978}}.</ref> The same standard governs mistrials granted [[sua sponte]]. | The rule for [[mistrial]]s depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad faith", i.e. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial because the government specifically wanted a mistrial.<ref>''[[Oregon v. Kennedy]]'', {{Ussc|456|667|1982}}.</ref> If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial.<ref>''[[Arizona v. Washington]]'', {{Ussc|434|497|1978}}.</ref> The same standard governs mistrials granted [[sua sponte]]. | ||
Retrials are not common, due to the legal expenses to the government. However, in the mid-1980s Georgia antique dealer [[James Arthur Williams]] was tried a record four times for murder over the [[shooting of Danny Hansford]], and after three mistrials was finally acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4195|title=James Williams – National Registry of Exonerations|website=law.umich.edu|access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> The case is recounted in the book ''[[Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil]],''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.savannahmagazine.com/25-years-after-midnight/|title=25 Years After Midnight|last=Domet|first=Sarah|date=13 September 2019|website=Savannah Magazine|access-date=3 January 2020|archive-date=6 October 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191006153644/https://www.savannahmagazine.com/25-years-after-midnight/|url-status=dead}}</ref> which was [[Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (film)|adapted into a film]] directed by [[Clint Eastwood]] (the movie combines the four trials into one).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/midnight-in-the-garden-of-good-and-evil-1997|title=Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil movie review (1997) {{!}} Roger Ebert|last=Ebert|first=Roger|website=rogerebert.com|access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> | Retrials are not common, due to the legal expenses to the government. However, in the mid-1980s Georgia antique dealer [[James Arthur Williams]] was tried a record four times for murder over the [[shooting of Danny Hansford]], and after three mistrials was finally acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4195 |title=James Williams – National Registry of Exonerations |website=law.umich.edu |access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> The case is recounted in the book ''[[Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil]],''<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.savannahmagazine.com/25-years-after-midnight/ |title=25 Years After Midnight |last=Domet |first=Sarah |date=13 September 2019 |website=Savannah Magazine |access-date=3 January 2020 |archive-date=6 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191006153644/https://www.savannahmagazine.com/25-years-after-midnight/ |url-status=dead}}</ref> which was [[Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (film)|adapted into a film]] directed by [[Clint Eastwood]] (the movie combines the four trials into one).<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/midnight-in-the-garden-of-good-and-evil-1997 |title=Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil movie review (1997) {{!}} Roger Ebert |last=Ebert |first=Roger |website=rogerebert.com |access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
{{Portal|Law}} | {{Portal|Law}} | ||
* [[David Smith (murderer)]] | |||
* [[Emmett Till]] | |||
* [[Sam Sheppard]] | * [[Sam Sheppard]] | ||
* [[ | * [[O. J. Simpson]] | ||
== Footnotes == | == Footnotes == | ||