3 ms·

Though there is a dumb movie called "double jeopardy" where the premise is that it works that way.

zeroimpl 6y ago
They were not acquitted for the first murder, they served the full sentence. Then later subsequently threatened to murder the same individual whom they had supposedly already murdered.
- not2b 6y ago
  It's still stupid: they could be prosecuted for murder, because if they were wrongly convicted for a murder that allegedly happened in 2003, a murder that happened in 2020 would be a different offense, even if it's the same alleged victim.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    they should be tried again, but the sentence should be reduced by time served.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Yeah, DJ still doesn’t work that way. That would be a distinct offense (now, it would be inconsistent, since the same person can only be killed once), but just as there have been, IIRC, a few instances where multiple different people were convicted of murdering the same person (like, directly, not some of them under vicarious liability rules that allow someone other than the proximate killer to be convicted of the offenses) in different trials despite the fact that it is logically inconsistent that all of those convictions could be accurate, it is quite possible to be (wrongfully) convicted of murdering someone and then convicted (rightfully) later if you then actually murder them thinking that having been previously convicted of doing that would give you a free pass. The same evidence used against you in your second trial might be useful in getting any lasting legal consequences of your first convinction expunged and negated as a wrongful conviction, but that’s likely to be of limited value if you are convicted of the second crime (though it might be useful to negate three-strikes or other repeat-offense enhancements.)
jacurtis 6y ago
Actually in the movie [SPOILERS AHEAD] a wealthy man, wanting to start a new life, decides to fake his death and frame his wife for his murder. His wife is subsequently tried for the murder that she did not commit, and found guilty. She then goes to prison and serves out the sentence for this murder. While in prison she learns that her husband is not actually dead and instead had framed her in order to start a new life. So after she is released from prison, having completed the sentence for her crime, she then proceeds to track down and publicly murder her husband. Because of Double Jeopardy, she can not be tried again for the same crime of murdering her husband. She had already been found guilty of it and had already served the sentence for the crime. She argues that it is not possible to murder the same person twice. So she is simply acting on the crime that she had already been convicted and punished for. If she were to go murder her friend or colleague after getting out of prison that would be a different murder and Double Jeopardy wouldn't apply. But murdering the husband that she has already served the sentence for is the same crime she already was found guilty of and can not be convicted of again. A Famous REAL LIFE example of this would be OJ Simpson. He was found NOT GUILTY in the 1994 murders of his ex-wife and friend. Since then he has basically publicly confessed to having murdered them (via an interview with FOX). He has also written a book where he writes in detail how he "would have" murdered them. His book publisher has also come out and claimed that he admitted to the murder to his publisher. The reason he can be so careless about these confessions is because he can not be tried for this crime again. He was already tried for it and found "not guilty" so even if new evidence (or a full-blown confession) comes to light, he can not be tried for it again under the protection of Double Jeopardy.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  England and Wales (maybe the whole United Kingdom?) fixed this specifically for such important crimes. You can face a second (or indeed subsequent) trial for some crimes despite being earlier found NOT GUILTY if there is substantial new evidence for the prosecution. In OJ's case, it's likely (under those rules) prosecutors could put together enough evidence to show OJ actually did kill those people, go back to court and get him convicted. Historically it was possible in England and Wales to re-try people in some particular extreme cases. For example if prosecutors could show tampering with the jury allowed you to get off, they can get the High Court to run a new trial, having presumably successfully convicted people (maybe including you) for the jury tampering meanwhile. Or if the original trial judge made a decision that is manifestly wrong e.g. you're on trial for murder, the judge says you seem like a nice man, acquits you on the spot, that can be appealed because a jury was never asked about it. But in 2003 as a result of the fall out from the murder of Stephen Lawrence (basically a bunch of white guys murdered a teenager apparently for being black but they weren't found guilty of murder) the law was changed. Now it's possible for prosecutors to go to court to get the court to decide that your original acquital was unsafe (the same way they'd decide if e.g. new CCTV evidence showed you were actually half way across the country at the time of a crime your conviction for that crime is unsafe and should be undone) and order a new trial. This option is only open for a handful of offences like murder or kidnapping.

They were not acquitted for the first murder, they served the full sentence. Then later subsequently threatened to murder the same individual whom they had supposedly already murdered.

not2b 6y ago
It's still stupid: they could be prosecuted for murder, because if they were wrongly convicted for a murder that allegedly happened in 2003, a murder that happened in 2020 would be a different offense, even if it's the same alleged victim.
- em-bee 6y ago
  they should be tried again, but the sentence should be reduced by time served.
dragonwriter 6y ago
Yeah, DJ still doesn’t work that way. That would be a distinct offense (now, it would be inconsistent, since the same person can only be killed once), but just as there have been, IIRC, a few instances where multiple different people were convicted of murdering the same person (like, directly, not some of them under vicarious liability rules that allow someone other than the proximate killer to be convicted of the offenses) in different trials despite the fact that it is logically inconsistent that all of those convictions could be accurate, it is quite possible to be (wrongfully) convicted of murdering someone and then convicted (rightfully) later if you then actually murder them thinking that having been previously convicted of doing that would give you a free pass. The same evidence used against you in your second trial might be useful in getting any lasting legal consequences of your first convinction expunged and negated as a wrongful conviction, but that’s likely to be of limited value if you are convicted of the second crime (though it might be useful to negate three-strikes or other repeat-offense enhancements.)

jacurtis 6y ago

Actually in the movie [SPOILERS AHEAD] a wealthy man, wanting to start a new life, decides to fake his death and frame his wife for his murder. His wife is subsequently tried for the murder that she did not commit, and found guilty. She then goes to prison and serves out the sentence for this murder. While in prison she learns that her husband is not actually dead and instead had framed her in order to start a new life. So after she is released from prison, having completed the sentence for her crime, she then proceeds to track down and publicly murder her husband. Because of Double Jeopardy, she can not be tried again for the same crime of murdering her husband. She had already been found guilty of it and had already served the sentence for the crime. She argues that it is not possible to murder the same person twice. So she is simply acting on the crime that she had already been convicted and punished for. If she were to go murder her friend or colleague after getting out of prison that would be a different murder and Double Jeopardy wouldn't apply. But murdering the husband that she has already served the sentence for is the same crime she already was found guilty of and can not be convicted of again. A Famous REAL LIFE example of this would be OJ Simpson. He was found NOT GUILTY in the 1994 murders of his ex-wife and friend. Since then he has basically publicly confessed to having murdered them (via an interview with FOX). He has also written a book where he writes in detail how he "would have" murdered them. His book publisher has also come out and claimed that he admitted to the murder to his publisher. The reason he can be so careless about these confessions is because he can not be tried for this crime again. He was already tried for it and found "not guilty" so even if new evidence (or a full-blown confession) comes to light, he can not be tried for it again under the protection of Double Jeopardy.

tialaramex 6y ago
England and Wales (maybe the whole United Kingdom?) fixed this specifically for such important crimes. You can face a second (or indeed subsequent) trial for some crimes despite being earlier found NOT GUILTY if there is substantial new evidence for the prosecution. In OJ's case, it's likely (under those rules) prosecutors could put together enough evidence to show OJ actually did kill those people, go back to court and get him convicted. Historically it was possible in England and Wales to re-try people in some particular extreme cases. For example if prosecutors could show tampering with the jury allowed you to get off, they can get the High Court to run a new trial, having presumably successfully convicted people (maybe including you) for the jury tampering meanwhile. Or if the original trial judge made a decision that is manifestly wrong e.g. you're on trial for murder, the judge says you seem like a nice man, acquits you on the spot, that can be appealed because a jury was never asked about it. But in 2003 as a result of the fall out from the murder of Stephen Lawrence (basically a bunch of white guys murdered a teenager apparently for being black but they weren't found guilty of murder) the law was changed. Now it's possible for prosecutors to go to court to get the court to decide that your original acquital was unsafe (the same way they'd decide if e.g. new CCTV evidence showed you were actually half way across the country at the time of a crime your conviction for that crime is unsafe and should be undone) and order a new trial. This option is only open for a handful of offences like murder or kidnapping.