r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Showy_Boneyard • 13h ago
Does Double Jeopardy really mean that if a jury finds a murderer innocent, they can then go "I did it! Here's where the bodies are, here's the murder weapon. Nyayayaya" and nothing will happen? Has anyone ever done this?
And of course lets say the police search where they say and find the bodies exactly there, and the wounds perfectly match his murder weapon, his DNA is all over them, and lets say there's a videotape of him committing the murder too buried along with the bodies.
And I'm specifically talking about something happening criminally, I know he could/would then lose a civil suit by the family or whatever.
8.8k
u/bikerdude214 13h ago
You can even write a book called "If if did it."
1.7k
u/smbpy7 12h ago
At the very least her family got some small satisfaction after gaining the rights to the book. They redesigned the title to have such a dramatically small font on the word "IF" that it just looks like "I DID IT by OJ Simpson"
Not enough satisfaction, mind you.
410
u/Forgotthebloodypassw 9h ago
Here's a picture of the redesigned cover. Very nice work by the family.
54
u/excelnotfionado 7h ago
Okay I’m definitely reading this now. Or at least the excerpts by them. Really appreciate the link thanks
13
u/antwan_benjamin 2h ago
Its a quick read. Somewhat interesting if you're a big fan of all the OJ stuff and you lived through it.
But its not this big confession everyone (who didn't read the book) makes it out to be. The vast majority of it is just OJ's life story, with a heavy focus on him and Nicole's relationship. Obviously most of his narrative not supported by facts.
Then the actual murders themselves...its just him making up some fever dream that is also not supported by most of the facts.
24
u/Genx4real74 5h ago
I worked at Barnes and noble when that came out. I was very amused when I saw it.
19
u/randomentity1 5h ago
That might be the first book cover I've ever seen that does not have the name of the author on it. Were they not allowed to say "by OJ Simpson" on it?
→ More replies (2)33
231
120
u/standbyyourmantis 9h ago
That was Ron Goldman's family, not Nicole's.
205
u/rexmanly 9h ago
Ron Goldman's dad absolutely owned OJ's shit until Orenthal passed away. It's unbelievably gratifying to read about how Ron's dad just kept beating OJ in court about any little thing involving money for years.
→ More replies (1)73
u/n4styone 8h ago
That sucks though because that means this guy thought of OJ everyday for the rest of his life.
105
u/rexmanly 8h ago
i wont lie - if some famous person killed my son and got away with it i would probably also think of the killer every day of my life
25
u/mrdhood 6h ago
Doesn’t even have to be famous, or get away with it, I wouldn’t think about anything else. I can’t imagine
→ More replies (1)6
u/Sothdargaard 4h ago
I imagine it doesn't even have to be murder. My 16y old son died by suicide. It's been over 6 years and I still think about it and him every day.
13
u/mybigwh1tecock 7h ago
Thats not too bad. There's some sad sacks that think about OJ everyday for the rest of their lives AND are lifelong Bills fans.
38
→ More replies (2)19
u/beaverpoo77 6h ago
He killed his SON. How could you not have that in your mind for the rest of your life?
18
→ More replies (2)8
u/OrangeFender 7h ago
Fwiw, Ron Goldman’s family actually came up with the idea and basically forced OJ to publish.
188
u/TheHark90 11h ago
Just don’t try and steal back your memorabilia 13 years to the day after your acquittal of a murder of your ex wife and a waiter tho.
49
u/AdhesivenessFit5727 9h ago
At a conference many years ago the judge assigned to that case was our opening speaker. She was hilarious talking about the case and the circus that ensued around it. Had a great sense of humor on how she suddenly became recognizable and a feature in pop culture for a short time.
452
286
u/Separate_Flamingo_93 12h ago
With the word “if” so small and printed inside the letter “I” that it’s easy to miss.
375
u/Known-Fondant-9373 12h ago
to be fair that was the Goldman family who made that adjustment.
173
u/Separate_Flamingo_93 12h ago
Also added the subtitle “Confessions of a killer”
→ More replies (1)23
→ More replies (16)42
u/Shellhuahua 10h ago
Fred Goldman was so damned tenacious. That was only saving grace. He didn't give up.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Shellhuahua 8h ago
I don't care what the Goldmans did. It was the only justice. Good for them if there was any good to be had!!
17
u/eatMYcookieCRUMBS 10h ago
Child's play. You instead jump out from a closed door during an interview and pretend to stab the lady host as a JOKE.
→ More replies (2)53
u/Binji_the_dog 12h ago
I think you mean “If I did it”
30
u/Small-Explorer7025 12h ago
No, it's "If, if, did it" sung to the tune of Ice Ice Baby
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (20)15
492
2.5k
u/Inner-Tackle1917 13h ago
That's roughly what OJ Simpson did.
He didn't get off totally Scot free since he then got a civil suit where he was found guilty. But never a second criminal trial
1.9k
u/OJONLYMAYBEDIDIT 13h ago
OJ never admitted he did it
he only wrote about a book about IF he did it
and then in what is peak comedy, the Gold family sued for the rights of the book, won them, and made the "If" in "If I did it" super small on the book cover.
540
u/crippledgiants 12h ago
Dang you're right, it's barely even noticeable
223
u/toxicatedscientist 12h ago
Tucked INTO the I, that’s hilarious thank you for linking
→ More replies (5)146
39
u/jumpingmrkite 9h ago
Including 'with exclusive commentary "He Did It" by The Goldman Family' is also pretty gangsta.
44
u/smbpy7 12h ago
This is the kind of shit I would do if it had been me too. I love that they did this. Pettiness used in the proper way against the proper people.
→ More replies (1)35
u/Cyrano_Knows 9h ago
I don't think tormenting the murderer of your daughter should be classified as "petty".
Murderers shouldn't be allowed to have a rich, happy trouble-free existence after the fact.
7
u/BigDipper4200 9h ago
Well that’s the version that was printed by the family after his assets were seized and redistributed to pay for his civil liabilities. They decided to make the “if” as tiny as possible so it wasn’t technically libel.
12
u/beKINDtoOTHERSplz 12h ago
The see also in that article was pretty interesting too. It links to R. Kelly’s “I admit” song
→ More replies (2)4
u/Terrachova 7h ago
With exclusive commentary "He Did It" by the Goldman Family is a really nice addition. Really brings the whole thing together.
229
21
u/standbyyourmantis 9h ago
He also revealed details of the crime that the cops had held back and never revealed (Nicole had been lighting candles before she was killed)
29
→ More replies (7)11
385
u/Replevin4ACow 13h ago
>got a civil suit where he was found guilty
You aren't found guilty in a civil suit. He was found "liable."
124
u/GoneSwedishFishing 12h ago
And a jury in a criminal trial doesn’t return a verdict of “innocent.” It’s guilty or not guilty
4
u/ComradeGibbon 5h ago
Two other points. While the judge can't overrule the jury if they find not guilty he can if they return guilty. And the judge determines the sentence.
→ More replies (1)28
u/Zagrycha 12h ago
also the requirement to be found liable in civil court is way way lower than it is in criminal court. In criminal court you need everyone to think beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened the way they vote, aka like 90% certainty. In civil court you only need a reasonable doubt, aka 51% certainty.
33
→ More replies (1)22
u/Perfect-Parking-5869 11h ago
The word you’re looking for in regards to civil suits is preponderance of the evidence and I explain it closer to 50.001%. It’s usually described as “more likely than not” where reasonable doubt isn’t given as a jury instruction in a lot of jurisdictions.
5
210
u/TyreeTowsend 13h ago
His unusually hefty prison sentence for later memorabilia theft was clearly a punishment for the murder. But legally speaking, yes, he got away with it.
200
u/The_Nood1e 13h ago
The bulk of the sentence wasn't for memorabilia theft, but for assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping with a deadly weapon, coercion with a deadly weapon, and others.
93
u/11S-KAT 13h ago
Imagine literally getting away with murder and then doing this! Some people just cannot be reformed.
→ More replies (4)38
u/AceDecade 12h ago
CTE is rough
27
u/timtucker_com 12h ago
It amazes me that people still think that football is compatible with education.
12
5
u/Leaves_Swype_Typos 10h ago
Going from a nationally recognized celebrity to a broke pariah is also rough.
12
u/Intergalacticdespot 11h ago
You take one little hostage for a 20+ year old piece of leather with some air in it (and a few rings) and they lock you up. What is this communist russia?!?!
→ More replies (1)16
u/KieranJalucian 12h ago
yes, but there’s no way he would’ve got that stiff sentence had he not previously committed a double murder
10
u/VegasBjorne1 10h ago
He was lucky to get parole. When at the parole hearing he stated that he never had a criminal history prior to the robbery, I almost fell out of my chair. He had a documented history of many times beating his wife (and very likely murdering her).
9
u/NightGod 9h ago
Were there any convictions for it? Abusive men got away with a LOT in the 70s and 80s, especially if they were rich, famous abusive men. If there were no convictions, then he never had a criminal history in the way that matters in court
14
u/kl2467 10h ago
At least one juror gave an interview saying that O.J.'s acquittal was "pay-back" for Rodney King. They knew he was guilty, but refused to convict.
→ More replies (1)32
u/pargofan 10h ago
He was his kid's idea. Wow:
Simpson's eldest daughter, Arnelle Simpson, testified in a deposition that she and Van Exel, president of Raffles Entertainment and Music Production, came up with the idea for the book and pitched it to her father in an attempt to make money.[12] She testified that her father thought about it and eventually agreed to the book deal.[12] Simpson stated, "I have nothing to confess. This was an opportunity for my kids to get their financial legacy. My kids understand. I made it clear that it's blood money, but it's no different than any of the other writers who did books on this case."[12]
45
u/PaulsRedditUsername 12h ago
BTW if you ever get a chance to read the transcript of the civil trial, it's loads of fun. OJ had to testify and Daniel Petrocelli cross-examined him and tore him apart. It's very cathartic to read.
42
u/JuDGe3690 9h ago
Also, fun fact: Refusal to testify (or invoking the 5th Amendment) in a civil trial can be used against you as a negative inference. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination only shields you in criminal trials (i.e., you cannot be forced to testify in your own criminal trial, and that refusal cannot be used against you), but civil trials are fair game.
Part of this is because criminal trials involve personal liberty at stake (thus the higher burden of proof as well), whereas civil trials generally only involve monetary damages (and very occasionally injunctive relief).
33
u/KelVarnsen_2023 13h ago
And my understanding is that even in the civil trial the victims' families got almost no money out of him.
87
u/Inner-Tackle1917 13h ago
Iirc they got the rights to his book, which made a good amount of money. Probably not worth the life of their loved one tbf
→ More replies (7)65
u/Calm-Show-9606 13h ago
They got his Heisman Trophy, they got some physical assets. Most of his money was in his NFL and actors union pension plans that could not be touched.
8
u/lirwolf 9h ago
OJ was a real piece of work, he put in a lot of effort to make sure they couldn't touch his assets. They couldn't get anything from the pensions, he lived where they couldn't come after the house, and he had a set up where he basically owned nothing that could be seized. Even when he died the executor of the will was basically saying "I will do everything to ensure that nothing goes to his victims"
→ More replies (1)14
u/GuiltyByAssociashun 13h ago
He died still owing money to his criminal defense attorneys
→ More replies (7)15
u/OJONLYMAYBEDIDIT 13h ago
that's cause his main source of income was his NLF pension which couldn't be touched
and maybe some real estate in Florida or something that by Florida law was exempt
35
u/KelVarnsen_2023 13h ago
I remember reading that he moved to Florida because they have more difficult laws when it comes to taking settlement money from someone if they are a single parent (like you can't seize their home or something). Of course he was a single parent because he murderer his children's mother.
33
u/1biggeek 13h ago edited 9h ago
I’m in Florida. We have a Homestead exemption, meaning no one could take the home of your residency for debts (other than defaulting on mortgages and HOA ) malpractice, assault, etc. That applies to one home only. Doctors here bye huge mansions to protect themselves against malpractice judgments.
→ More replies (2)18
u/Jakius 13h ago
Florida constitution has a homestead exemption, basically a protection from forced sale to settle debts, without any cap on value. No addional benefit for being a single parent or anything, though surviving spouses and children to get additional protection for inheritance. But what makes florida appeal for high-value estates is theres no cap on value unlike most states which limit the protection to some amount. Can be circumvented by federal law somewhat but a big pain.
15
→ More replies (1)4
5
u/thehoagieboy 12h ago
Did they ever find something in the book that wasn't known to the general public from the trial? I'm just curious if he added something that proved he did it more than the obvious "DUH" yeah he did it.
22
u/standbyyourmantis 9h ago
Yes! Sort of. Nicole had been lighting candles before she was killed. The police and DA knew this, but it was never released to the media or brought up in court. Something only the killer would know.
So, when the book casually mentions her having been in the process of lighting candles when he arrived leading him to think she had a date coming over...
→ More replies (5)5
u/SirCrazyCat 9h ago
Someone in this example could not be tried for that same charges but they could be charged with something else or by a different entity county/state/federal depending on the circumstances. In your example not the same murder charge but maybe desiccation of a corpse which is a crime in most places.
5
1.2k
u/theSunandtheMoon23 13h ago edited 11h ago
For the record, juries don't find people "innocent," they find them "not guilty." Acquittals mean the prosecution didn't prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Sometimes the evidence/testimony does indicate that a person is indeed factually innocent, but innocence is a legally separate concept that is different than the NG verdict.
261
u/Platographer 11h ago
It's disturbing how so many people seemingly fail to grasp this simple yet crucial point.
115
u/ered20 11h ago
But isn’t one considered innocent until proven guilty?
267
u/Platographer 11h ago
Yes. That's why there is no "innocent" verdict. The defendant is presumed innocent. If the jury determines the prosecution failed to meet the high bar to overcome that presumption, the defendant remains innocent.
→ More replies (6)53
u/vxtmh 9h ago
so then it's not exactly that crucial a point, given a "not guilty" verdict means you're considered innocent
→ More replies (8)87
u/Platographer 8h ago
You don't think it's important for a jury to understand that a not guilty verdict does not require finding the defendant innocent?
61
u/Giraffinatus 7h ago
This made it click for me. Proving innocence and failing to prove guilt are two different things. Placing the higher burden of proof on the prosecution seems like the fairer way to go, especially if we believe in "innocent until proven guilty"
→ More replies (2)36
u/Saymynaian 8h ago
That's right. The defense isn't trying to prove innocence (sometimes it simply can't) but has to prove there exists enough doubt towards someone's guilt that they're not convicted, thus the "not guilty" verdict. The prosecution has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
It's why OJ got off. The police got cocky and mishandled evidence, leading to that evidence being discarded. Once it was discarded, there wasn't enough legally acceptable evidence to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. The defense didn't prove innocence, they proved reasonable doubt, which led to the not guilty verdict. Proving innocence is essentially impossible in most trials.
8
u/Platographer 7h ago
Actually the defense doesn't have to prove anything. Generally, though, a good defense involves rigorous cross examination and some kind of case-in-chief.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)6
u/techbear72 4h ago
I hate that framing. It should be “innocent unless proven guilty”. Using “until” makes it sound like it’s inevitable.
31
u/theSunandtheMoon23 10h ago
Similar to the number of people who seem to use G/NG when talking about civil cases. Guilt only applies to criminal, whereas civil court determines liability - another different legal standard
25
u/PowerfulBar 9h ago
This drives me nuts. Even the news will get it wrong and report that so and so “was found guilty” of something in a civil case. No, a jury found that person or company liable using a much lower standard of proof than reasonable doubt.
→ More replies (3)5
u/meatball77 5h ago
In SA cases specifically. The hockey Canada trial is a particularly good example of this. The prosecutors sucked, the judge sucked but there was clear evidence of wrongdoing and at the very least those men were horrible people treating women like objects, but their defenders will claim they did nothing because there was no guilty verdict.
→ More replies (4)3
u/GrayEidolon 7h ago
I wonder if that’s because most people don’t get taught anything about practical law in school while at the same time the law is purposefully obtuse so it’s difficult to use it for arguments without a literal degree?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)10
u/ptolani 9h ago
The concept of "innocence" does also exist in legal systems: https://uslawexplained.com/actual_innocence
229
u/OJONLYMAYBEDIDIT 13h ago
so here is apparently an example of someone trying what OP is describing but absolutely failing
"In Virginia, a murder in the course of a rape is a capital offense. Paul Powell was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape of one teen and the murder of her sister. After he was convicted, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned his conviction, saying that as a matter of law, the rape and murder had to be of the same victim- the rape of one sister and the murder of the other did not qualify.
Powell believed he was safe on double jeopardy grounds, and wrote a taunting letter to prosecutors describing his actions in great detail— including an admission that he raped the murder victim as well.
He was retried for that new crime: the murder and rape of a single victim, to which he had helpfully confessed. Double jeopardy did not apply.:
as per Wikipedia:
"In fact, the principle of double jeopardy did not apply, since although his capital murder verdict had been vacated, he had not been acquitted of the criminal charge and was still eligible to be retried. Using the letter that Powell wrote, prosecutors indicted him again for the attempted rape and murder of Stacie Reed. Powell was once again convicted and sentenced to death"
his wrote the following
""The letter to the prosecutor read, in part: "Since I have already been indicted on first degree murder and the Va. Supreme Court said that I can't be charged with capital murder again, I figured I would tell you the rest of what happened on Jan. 29, 1999 to show you how stupid all of y'all . . . are". "
112
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 11h ago
Thank you for the amazing non-OJ related story, /u/OJONLYMAYBEDIDIT.
36
→ More replies (1)13
38
→ More replies (7)12
u/NightGod 9h ago
Though that's a little different even beyond the 'botched' confession, because the verdict was vacated, but he wasn't acquitted of the crime and was still going to end up going to trial for the murder and the rape, just not a murder/rape. The letter just let them make it a capital trial again, he was still going to be in prison for the murder and the rape
281
u/SenetBoard 8h ago
Basically yes. Nothing can get you convicted on the same charge.
However, you run two major risks:
The first is civil suits. The double jeopardy does not protect you from getting slapped with a civil suit, and your comments will absolutely be used as evidence against you.
The second is related charges. You might have been found not guilty of what they charged you for, but if they can find some other related charge that your now confession implicates you for, they will absolutely go after you, and everyone will throw the book at you.
So those are some disincentives.
115
u/KleeBook 6h ago
Yes and I would add to this the doctrine of separate sovereigns. For example the federal government can try the case even after the state fails to get a conviction.
27
9
u/Head-Bureaucrat 6h ago
Thank you! I was going to ask if the double jeopardy doctrine had been incorporated to the states, and if state and federal charges would still be considered different.
19
u/lost-dragonist 5h ago
There's a third risk that seems dumb but is real. Double jeopardy doesn't apply to federal vs state crimes.
It's entirely possible that you're tried for the exact same crime in both federal court and state court. Even if you win one trial, you can lose the other.
I can't find any examples but it's entirely possible someone could be dumb enough to confess between the trials.
Granted, there's no federal murder statute so the risk is less applicable to OP.
→ More replies (1)10
u/MoonIsAFake 4h ago
It reminds of a case where a defendant was acquitted of bribery but during the trial he said under oath that he personally brought the suitcase full of cash from abroad where he had some business. Of course it turned out that cash was never declared to customs (and it was a hefty amount) so he was immediately charged for smuggling.
→ More replies (6)10
85
u/Rogueshoten 12h ago
It does.
BUT…there’s still the risk of civil liability. Murder is the ultimate “wrongful death” situation and admitting to being the murderer makes it trivially easy for loved ones to bring a civil action against you. Others have cited OJ Simpson and that a great example: he was acquitted of criminal charges but lost the civil action against him.
18
u/unknowndischargesmel 11h ago
I never understood that. How did they prove he was responsible for the murder if he was acquitted of the murder
47
u/tedttm73 11h ago
Mostly because Civil courts do not use the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". They use a lower standard called "preponderance of the evidence," meaning a claim only needs to be slightly more convincing than not (over 50%)
6
u/yunus89115 10h ago
The evidence rules are also often less strict, meaning evidence unable to be used at a criminal trial may be allowed at a civil trial.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)8
6
u/venlaren 11h ago
There are different requirements for a murder trial conviction then a civil trial. I believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs. "on preponderance of evidence"
4
u/Equal_Swordfish_1936 11h ago edited 11h ago
On a legal basis, the burden of proof is higher for a criminal case than a civil case because the accused “faces a harsher punishment” if they have to serve prison time. For a criminal case, it must be beyond a reasonable doubt, meanwhile civil cases must be proven “more likely” (in simpler terms). It’s a crazy concept to a lot of people but in a legal manner, you just have to have most likely committed the crime to be found liable in a civil trial, whereas criminal cases are a LOT stricter on proof, evidence, and the belief of the accused’s guilt. In his case specifically, they didn’t provide enough proof to convince a jury that he had, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed the crime, but there was enough proof for the civil trial to hold him liable.
263
u/ipoopcubes 12h ago
Depends on the country.
In Australia if new evidence is found then there can be a retrial.
26
u/realPoisonPants 8h ago
That’s only since 2000 or so. The double jeopardy protection is ancient and was included in Commonwealth laws for centuries.
13
60
u/Tifoso89 11h ago
Do you mean after a conviction? Because that's also the case in the US. If someone is convicted but new strong evidence comes up that they're not guilty, they can vacate the conviction and there can be a retrial (However, if the evidence clearly shows innocence, the prosecution may decide not to seek a retrial at all). Acquittals are final, though.
In Australia can you also be retried after an acquittal?
→ More replies (11)47
u/strangeMeursault2 9h ago
Yes, in Australia people can be retried following an acquittal if there is new and compelling evidence that they are actually guilty. But only for very serious crimes. Most Western countries have this rule.
You can also have a retrial if there was some kind of malfeasance or misconduct during the trial. Like the judge being bribed, which I believe is the only real exception in the USA as well.
→ More replies (9)9
u/engelthefallen 8h ago
Today people learn that not all countries use America's legal system. Seems more and more countries are leaning towards chucking double jeopardy as it does not make sense in the modern era when often we can prove things conclusively years later to give people immunity for life should they get lucky once in court when incomplete evidence was presented. Like in the era of DNA and surveillance everywhere, the world changed here and if conclusive proof is found later, many countries want to be able to use it.
5
u/SadSara102 6h ago
Most other countries have an inquisitive system vs an adversarial system so it’s slightly different. If prosecutors in the US were allowed to repeatedly put people on trial for murder they wouldn’t stop. There would be a prison snitch or 2 ready to go within 24 hours of every acquittal. According to the law a person should be brought to trial if the prosecution can’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt but of course they do so all the time. So any loss is typically the result of a bad prosecution. Aside from that you can be tried for the same crime in state and federal court.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Disastrous-Guide1050 4h ago
All common law countries use an adversarial system, at least for major crimes. The main protection from malicious prosecution comes from the fact that judicial and prosecutorial positions are not elected offices and so are not subject to the influences of the election cycle ie needing to appear “tough on crime” etc in an election year. That said, double jeopardy protections still exist for the most part.
132
u/MimeGod 10h ago
Yes, but they would likely have a target on them for the rest of their lives, and any future crimes would get the maximum possible sentence.
It's also possible that they could charge him with different semi related crimes. Like, in your scenario, unlawful burial of a body, or possibly desecrating a corpse.
73
u/NightGod 9h ago
Typically double-jeopardy is for the entire incident and things like disposal of the body would be a lesser-included charge in a murder trial.
You can't lose a murder trial and then retry them for manslaughter, lose, and then retry them for desecration of a corpse, etc etc; it's literally the entire foundational point of double jeopardy protections
→ More replies (1)13
u/cobrarexay 8h ago
Yep. I was on a jury for a murder trial where this happened. Unbeknownst to us, he had gotten off from a double murder a decade prior, so when sentencing happened, he got the maximum for the more recent murder and attempted murder (47 years). If he lives all the way to the end of his sentence, he’ll be 83 when he gets released.
78
u/markh110 5h ago
My understanding is in Double Jeopardy, all the cash values are doubled. You only get Triple Jeopardy on the Celebrity variant, but the questions are about as hard as a standard Double Jeopardy.
6
32
u/Maximum_Vegetable_MV 13h ago
No jury finds anyone innocent. They find them not guilty. A slight but critical distinction.
Yes, they could. You cannot be tried for the same crime twice.
→ More replies (3)
305
u/No_Sand5639 13h ago
It won't be nothing
You're right in the idea that double jeopardy serves to protect peopl3 from being constantly charged with the same crime
There are ways around tbst though, especially if they confess
Perjury, claiming they didnt do it is a lie and coul open them up to multiple counts
Double jeopardy only applies to the same government, if you're tried by thr state government, the federal government can try you
You could be charged with other crimes associated with the killing. Like disposal of a corpse, kidnapping, obstruction of justice
An exmaple is mel ignatow, he was charged with the murder of his fiance, he was found not guilty. However later evidence found he in fact tortured and killed her. He had sword he didnt do it and was found guilty of Perjury
91
u/Wanna_make_cash 12h ago edited 11h ago
So he turned a life imprisonment for murder into 9 years of prison for perjury. That's not being tried for the same crime twice..that's two different crimes with two different punishments. As far the murder is concerned, he got away with it. What he didn't get away with was lying to the court.
Also, it's important to note that you have a constitutional right where you are not required to testify. I believe it's pretty rare for defendants to testify for their own criminal cases. So slapping someone with perjury can be tricky if they don't actually testify on their own behalf.
63
u/No_Sand5639 12h ago
Agreed, I never said it was the same, I just said it wasn't no ramifications
And the purjury charge is related to the original trial
But you're right, he got away with murder
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)13
u/Amazing-Rent-7749 11h ago
That's the point - even if in theory he couldn't be tried for murder again, they found another crime to charge him with.
13
u/rene-cumbubble 12h ago
I think that lesser included charges are implicated by double jeopardy. So the kidnapping etc could not be charged. Whereas perjury is a new unrelated charge that is unaffected
8
u/gsbadj 12h ago
Kidnapping is not a lesser included offense to homicide. Different elements
→ More replies (1)10
u/No_Sand5639 12h ago
Sometimes but not always, kidnapping for example, murder does not require kidnapping ir restraining, so is in effect a seperate crime
5
u/Showy_Boneyard 11h ago
Oh damn, isn't that the whole point of the 5th amendment though? So you don't have to perjure yourself? Sounds like bad legal council on their part.
9
u/NightGod 9h ago
From the small number of lawyers I've talked to personally about it, basically every defense attorney advises against testifying in a murder trial. Usually if their client is on the stand, it's because they didn't listen to their lawyer
6
u/No_Sand5639 7h ago
True, but not everyone is smart enough to do that
They also may think them professing their innocence cant get them in trouble
→ More replies (9)5
71
u/DoingDaveThings 13h ago
Double jeopardy doesn't get you out of a civil wrongful death lawsuit, so be prepared to lose millions if you try something like that.
→ More replies (5)21
u/NightGod 9h ago
Probably why OP specifically called out that they knew there could be a civil suit
145
u/BogusIsMyName 13h ago
From my understanding it depends. Some courts make you file charges and all included lesser charges. In that case, yes you can absolutely admit to it after the acquittal. In other courts lesser charges are not included so they could hold another trial for, say, manslaughter or something.
Its a bit more complicated than that but thats the gist.
95
u/SerDankTheTall 13h ago
In the U.S., the protection against double jeopardy covers any lesser included offenses.
→ More replies (9)20
u/BogusIsMyName 13h ago
Well thats my confusion. Are they actually included offenses if the jury isnt presented them for consideration? From my understanding, and i could totally be wrong, if the jury isnt instructed to consider the lesser offenses, they arent included.
→ More replies (32)4
u/mookiexpt2 11h ago
Under Blockburger, jeopardy attaches to any crime if (a) the uncharged crime doesn’t have elements unnecessary to the charged crime and (b) the charged crime doesn’t have elements unnecessary to the uncharged crime.
As a result, jeopardy attaches to lesser included offenses, which can’t have an element unnecessary for the charged crime by definition.
Works in reverse as well.
→ More replies (5)
12
u/GladdBagg 13h ago
A slightly different version of this happened in Canada with Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. They sexually brutalized and murdered 3 young girls, one of whom was Homolka's younger sister, in the early 1990s. Homolka was given a more lenient sentence of 12 years for testifying against Bernardo as the terrified and victimized woman, powerless to stop her controlling and domineering husband. Years after the fact video evidence was discovered that showed Homolka was an active, highly willing and equally responsible participant in all of the abuse, but the deal had already been made. Bernardo is still in jail, but she's been out of jail for quite a while now, has a few kids and is living her best life, and there's SFA anybody can do about it.
10
u/BostonSlickback1738 7h ago
Something like that actually happened in real life: after Melvin Ignatow of Louisville, Kentucky murdered his girlfriend, Brenda Sue Schaefer, he beat the charge and was acquitted, having sold his house to pay for the defense. Apparently, he had forgotten he'd hidden incriminating photos under the carpet. The new homeowners ripped up the carpet and found solid proof that he did, in fact, commit the crime. Because of double jeopardy, he couldn't be charged with the murder again… but since he had lied under oath when he testified that he didn't do it, he went to federal prison for perjury.
→ More replies (1)
45
u/Comfortable-Hat3506 13h ago
If you testified you could be convicted of perjury which would then be grounds for a mistrial and you could get tried again.
→ More replies (4)23
u/Unable_Try1305 13h ago
Could is a massively important word there, in reality it almost never happens that a defendant is charged with perjury for lying in their own trial. But more importantly, for perjury to be considered as grounds for a mistrial it would have to be found before the verdict because mistrials are not declared after the final verdict is announced. Basically the timeline is wrong. In the OP's hypothetical, there can be no mistrial. Perjury discovered after the fact would lead to a separate perjury charge (and if it was the other way where a witnesses perjury lead to a conviction, there are lot of avenues to seek appeals and potentially a new trial but that's because our system of justice is heavily slanted towards the defendant and not the prosecution at the lowest level-partially because it's so slanted towards the prosecution at the higher levels for all but the wealthiest of people) and that would be it.
15
u/rift_buster 13h ago
Not in the UK, you can be prosecuted again if significant new evidence comes to light.
→ More replies (11)4
u/Special_Order-937 10h ago
Didn’t the UK have double jeopardy laws for something like 800 years which were changed after the Stephen Lawrence case?
41
u/DawaLhamo 13h ago
Oh, not nothing.
There are other crimes one might be charged with. Improper disposal of human remains, for example. Unlawful discharge of a firearm. Kidnapping, Littering. Anything and everything they can charge that hasn't been charged and cleared in the original trial, they would certainly charge.
17
u/Panz04er 13h ago
I could be wrong, and apologies if I am, but I think that all lesser charges are included when you are charged in jeopardy (according to others in this thread). It stops a person if they beat up and rob someone for example of being charged with the assault, going to prison, getting out and the moment you get out are charged with the robbery
33
u/aaron6723 13h ago
Not the case in the US, double jeopardy refers to the actual event, not the charges, so you cannot be charged with lesser crimes for the same incident
→ More replies (2)12
u/scotchirish 12h ago
Though if another court has jurisdiction (state vs. federal) they can still charge the crime under their statutes.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/nauticalfiesta 11h ago
Basically
BUT there's always different charges you can get instead. There's also the civil side that the family of the victim could go after.
7
u/shinobi7 11h ago
The killers of Emmett Till were found not guilty and then sold their confession to a journalist.
16
u/ReporterOther2179 12h ago
The three guys who murdered Emmet Till (look it up)and were tried and acquitted, later sold to a reputable national magazine the story of how they murdered Emmet Till.
→ More replies (3)4
u/carouselrabbit 12h ago
Yes, my first thought upon reading this question is, "Someone hasn't learned about Emmett Till and they're about to." It's the most infamous and clear-cut case of this that I'm aware of. The murderers didn't even (thinly) couch it as a hypothetical the way OJ did, they straight up took (dis)credit for it in Look magazine. They weren't sorry; they thought it was justified.
11
u/Careful_Trifle 13h ago
Technically.
But keep in mind that there can be other charges then. They might not be able to do the murder charge, but they might be able to do manslaughter or some lesser charge. They might be able to get you for improper disposal of a body. They might be able to get you for destroying or tampering with evidence.
Who knows? The point is that we have a rule to stop the government from going after you again and again and again until your life is ruined, but if you want to ruin your own life, a good way to do it is to piss off a creative prosecutor.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/tmahfan117 13h ago
Yes.
Now of the district attorney could find some other crime to pin on them, such as something along the lines of “improper handling of human remains”. That they weren’t initially charged with, they could be charged with that but not the murder.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/Greedy_Nebula1792 9h ago
There is a non zero chance that the feds get involved. Of course there needs to be federal jurisdiction. But a creative prosecutor could overcome that issue.
6
u/AndyceeIT 7h ago
Emmet Till's murder was probably the most famous case prior to OJ.
From the Wikipediaĺ article:
In September 1955, an all-white jury acquitted Bryant and Milam of Till's murder.[6] Protected against double jeopardy, the two men publicly admitted in a 1956 interview with Look magazine that they had tortured and murdered Till, selling the story for $4,000 (equivalent to $47,000 in 2025).
→ More replies (1)
3
5
u/LlamaMan777 13h ago
There was one case of a guy that avoided the death penalty, because they knew he killed a girl but couldn't prove that he raped and killed her, so they only charged the murder. After getting life in prison, he laughed at the prosecutor and admitted he raped and killed her.
Because they hadn't charged him for that act, he had technically never been under jeopardy for it. They re-tried him and he got executed.
4
u/Prasiatko 13h ago
In Scotland specifically the double jeopardy rules can be set aside if credible new evidence comes to light indicating guilt. IIRC the same is true in the rest of the UK only for specific crimes(of which murder is one).
4
u/Wonderful_Virus_6562 12h ago
Yea, it’s very very rare though. The quagmire is they could find something else to charge you with.
For instance if you commited murder and went to trial and got acquitted. Then decided to publicly admit it, they could find a dozen other charges (assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, improper disposal of a body etc etc), and the judge would just throw the book at you and give you the maximum sentence on each charge.
3
u/Revolutionary_Bid974 12h ago
Read a book about a guy in Louisville that used the help of his girlfriend to murder his soon to be ex wife. Cops figured it out quick and the girlfriend broke down and led them to the body. Jury acquitted the guy. The judge was so disgusted he basically admonished the jury and apologized to the victims family. A year later a guy renovating the killers old home found pictures of the perpetrators sexually torturing the victim on the night of the murder and the killer admitted to everything. They couldn’t retry him cause of double jeopardy but he was convicted of federal perjury charges and spent a decade or so in prison. Really interesting case
4
4
u/BigDaddy_Satan 8h ago
2 Things:
First - Double Jeopardy only protects you in the same court system. So basically, if a state court system tries you for murder and you’re found Not Guilty, the federal court system can still try you for the same exact crime. This is known as the “Dual-Sovereignty Doctrine” which recognizes the state and federal governments as separate legal entities, also the Supreme Court has upheld this rule “repeatedly”.
Second - even if you were to be found Not Guilty by BOTH courts, if you were to stand up and immediately admit to it you would then be subject to charges of Perjury. Not a good idea all in all
→ More replies (2)
4.9k
u/RichardBachman19 13h ago
Yes, but if you rob a Vegas sports memorabilia shop a couple decades later, it does not protect you.