Double Jeopardy

The principle of double jeopardy is a vital part of the American criminal justice system. It’s rooted in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts once they have been acquitted or convicted.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Reasons Behind the Principle

The idea of double jeopardy protects individuals from being subject to the stress and expense of multiple trials for the same offense. It also safeguards the integrity of the criminal justice system, ensuring fair and final outcomes. In essence, it brings closure to proceedings and prevents the state from pursuing endless prosecutions until they secure a conviction.

When It Isn’t Double Jeopardy

While the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offense, there are instances where this protection does not apply. It is important to understand these exceptions to grasp the scope of the double jeopardy principle fully.

Firstly, double jeopardy protection does not apply when the proceedings involve different jurisdictions. This is known as the “dual sovereignty” doctrine. For instance, a person can be tried and acquitted for a crime in a state court and later tried and convicted for the same act in a federal court. This is because the state and federal systems are distinct entities with their own laws and interests to protect.

Secondly, double jeopardy does not apply to separate criminal acts committed at different times, even if they involve the same behavior or are against the same victim. For example, if an individual is tried and convicted for robbing a bank, they can be tried again if they rob the same bank at a later date. Each crime is considered a separate offense.

Thirdly, double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases. So, a person can face a criminal trial for an act, such as drunk driving, and then face a civil lawsuit from a victim of the same act, such as in a wrongful death suit. This is because criminal cases and civil suits serve different purposes: criminal cases are meant to punish the offender, while civil cases seek compensation for victims.

Lastly, double jeopardy protection does not apply if a case is retried after a mistrial is declared due to a hung jury. This is because a mistrial is not an acquittal nor a conviction, so the case can be tried again.

Thus, the principle of double jeopardy, while fundamental, has limits. Its protections are not universal and depend on the specific circumstances of each case.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

The concept of double jeopardy can be complex and has been refined over the years through various Supreme Court cases.

Blockburger v. United States (1932)

In the case of Blockburger v. United States, the Supreme Court established the “same elements” test for determining whether two charges constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. Blockburger was charged with multiple violations of the Harrison Narcotic Act for selling drugs without a prescription, with each sale seen as a separate violation. The court held that each violation required different evidence to prove, so double jeopardy did not apply (Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 1932).

Benton v. Maryland (1969)

Benton v. Maryland was a landmark case that made double jeopardy protection applicable to state trials, not just federal ones. Benton was tried for burglary and larceny, but while he was acquitted of burglary, the jury could not reach a verdict on larceny. When the state tried him again for larceny, he appealed, arguing double jeopardy. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy protection applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 1969).

United States v. Dixon (1993)

In United States v. Dixon, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the “same elements” test from Blockburger. Dixon had been released on bail on the condition he wouldn’t commit a crime. After being arrested for another crime, he was charged with criminal contempt for violating the bail condition and with the new crime. The court held that since each charge required proof of a fact that the other did not, double jeopardy did not apply (United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 1993).

Summary

The concept of double jeopardy plays a fundamental role in ensuring fairness within the American judicial system. By protecting individuals from being tried twice for the same crime, it offers closure and certainty. Supreme Court cases, such as Blockburger v. United States, Benton v. Maryland, and United States v. Dixon, have helped shape our understanding and application of this principle over the years.

However, this principle has certain limits. Double jeopardy protections do not apply in situations involving different jurisdictions, separate criminal acts, civil cases, or retrials after mistrials due to hung juries. Understanding these exceptions is vital for comprehending the full extent and application of the double jeopardy principle.

References

• Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932)
• Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969)
• United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993)

 

Modification History

File Created:  08/08/2018

Last Modified:  07/24/2023

---

[ Back | Content | Next]

---

This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.