Difference between revisions of "Double Jeopardy"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 25: Line 25:
 
Jeopardy will not attach, even in light of a final judgment, if the earlier trial is proven to be a fraud or scam.  In such instances, retrial is allowed and no double jeopardy concerns are raised.  In Harry Aleman v. The Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Seventh Circuit denied Aleman's petition for habeas corpus and affirmed the lower court's murder charges against him despite a prior acquittal on the same charges.<ref>Aleman v. The Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 138 F.3d 302 (1998), ''available at'' http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/138/138.F3d.302.97-2479.html</ref>  Aleman successfully bribed a Cook County Circuit Judge to acquit him of murder charges in 1977, but a grand jury returned a second indictment against him on the same murder charge in 1993 after evidence of the bribery surfaced.  The Seventh Circuit held that the first murder trial against Aleman was a sham, and thus created a situation in which Aleman was never in jeopardy in the first place. As a result, there was no double jeopardy issue and the second murder trial was allowed to proceed.
 
Jeopardy will not attach, even in light of a final judgment, if the earlier trial is proven to be a fraud or scam.  In such instances, retrial is allowed and no double jeopardy concerns are raised.  In Harry Aleman v. The Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Seventh Circuit denied Aleman's petition for habeas corpus and affirmed the lower court's murder charges against him despite a prior acquittal on the same charges.<ref>Aleman v. The Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 138 F.3d 302 (1998), ''available at'' http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/138/138.F3d.302.97-2479.html</ref>  Aleman successfully bribed a Cook County Circuit Judge to acquit him of murder charges in 1977, but a grand jury returned a second indictment against him on the same murder charge in 1993 after evidence of the bribery surfaced.  The Seventh Circuit held that the first murder trial against Aleman was a sham, and thus created a situation in which Aleman was never in jeopardy in the first place. As a result, there was no double jeopardy issue and the second murder trial was allowed to proceed.
  
==What Constitutes the Same Offense: ''The Blockburger'' Test==
+
==What Constitutes the Same Offense: The ''Blockburger'' Test==
  
 
In any double jeopardy litigation, the court must determine whether or not successive prosecutions are geared toward the same offense. At common law, a single episode of criminal behavior produced only one prosecution, no matter how many wrongful acts were committed during that episode.  Modern law however has moved away from this one-trial-per-incident approach and allows for prosecution of separate crimes as applied to the same set of facts.   
 
In any double jeopardy litigation, the court must determine whether or not successive prosecutions are geared toward the same offense. At common law, a single episode of criminal behavior produced only one prosecution, no matter how many wrongful acts were committed during that episode.  Modern law however has moved away from this one-trial-per-incident approach and allows for prosecution of separate crimes as applied to the same set of facts.   
  
The U.S. Supreme Court set the double jeopardy "same offense" standard in Blockburger v. United States, in which it wrote that the government may prosecute an individual for more than one offense stemming from a single course of conduct only when each offense requires proof of an element that the other offenses do not require.<ref>Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), ''available at'' http://supreme.justia.com/us/284/299/case.html.</ref> Blockburger requires courts to examine the substantive elements of each offense as delineated by statute, without regard to the evidence presented later at trial.  The prosecution has the burden of demonstrating that each offense to be charged has at least one mutually exclusive element from the other offenses.
+
The U.S. Supreme Court set the double jeopardy "same offense" standard in ''Blockburger v. United States'', in which it wrote that the government may prosecute an individual for more than one offense stemming from a single course of conduct only when each offense requires proof of an element that the other offenses do not require.<ref>Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), ''available at'' http://supreme.justia.com/us/284/299/case.html.</ref> ''Blockburger'' requires courts to examine the substantive elements of each offense as delineated by statute, without regard to the evidence presented later at trial.  The prosecution has the burden of demonstrating that each offense to be charged has at least one mutually exclusive element from the other offenses.
  
 
Many state courts employ the "same transaction" analysis for determining double jeopardy issues. The "same transaction" analysis requires the prosecution to join all offenses that were committed during a continuous interval, share a common factual basis, and display a single goal or intent.  Although no longer in use by federal courts, some state courts may also employ the "same-conduct" analysis, under which the government is forbidden to prosecute an individual twice for the same criminal behavior, regardless of the actual evidence introduced at trial or the statutory elements of the offense.<ref>Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), ''available at'' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=495&invol=508. The Court later overruled ''Grady'' in ''United States v. Dixon'', 509 U.S. 688 (1993), ''available at'' http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-1231.ZO.html, for failing to satisfy the requirements of the ''Blockburger'' test.</ref>
 
Many state courts employ the "same transaction" analysis for determining double jeopardy issues. The "same transaction" analysis requires the prosecution to join all offenses that were committed during a continuous interval, share a common factual basis, and display a single goal or intent.  Although no longer in use by federal courts, some state courts may also employ the "same-conduct" analysis, under which the government is forbidden to prosecute an individual twice for the same criminal behavior, regardless of the actual evidence introduced at trial or the statutory elements of the offense.<ref>Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), ''available at'' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=495&invol=508. The Court later overruled ''Grady'' in ''United States v. Dixon'', 509 U.S. 688 (1993), ''available at'' http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-1231.ZO.html, for failing to satisfy the requirements of the ''Blockburger'' test.</ref>
  
Additionally, a substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not considered the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes.  
+
Additionally, a substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not considered the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes.<ref>''See'' United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992), ''available at'' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=503&invol=378.</ref>
 
 
  
 
= Notes =
 
= Notes =

Revision as of 10:07, 15 October 2010