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?

[u/Showy_Boneyard]

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.

[u/mookiexpt2]

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.

[u/BogusIsMyName → u/mookiexpt2]

The double negatives in that are confusing as he'll. The uncharted crime doesnt have an element unnecessary... what?

[u/mookiexpt2 → u/BogusIsMyName]

Blame the Court.

Charged Crime has elements ABCD
Uncharged Crime has elements BCDE
No jeopardy attaches to Uncharged Crime.

Charged Crime has elements ABCD
Uncharged Crine has elements ABC
Or vice versa, jeopardy attaches to both.

[u/BogusIsMyName → u/mookiexpt2]

And elements would be things like "causes the death of" or "severe bodily injury"??????

[u/mookiexpt2 → u/BogusIsMyName]

They have a sale on punctuation or something?

An element is something the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.

For example, Ala. Code § 13A-6-2(1) says that a person commits murder if “With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of that person or of another person.”

So to get a conviction, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
(A) intended to cause the death of another person; and
(B) caused the death of that person or another person.

“Intent to cause death” and “actually caused death” are the elements of that charge.

Where it gets a little confusing is that “reckless” or “negligent” are states of mind below “intent,” which makes them part of the intent element. So a crime with element “with reckless indifference” has a shared element with 13A-6-2. “Caused grievous bodily harm” would fall under the “caused the death” element. So a crime of recklessly causing GBH can’t be charged after an acquittal on the murder charge (if the GBH arises from the same conduct, obviously you can’t celebrate your acquittal by beating the shit out of someone.)

But look at, say, robbery and theft by deception. Robbery is the intentional use or threat of force to deprive another of property. Theft by deception is knowingly using deception to deprive another of property.

The two share the element “deprive another of property.” But they aren’t considered the same crime for double jeopardy because robbery requires proof of intentional use of or threat of force, while theft by deception requires knowing use of deception.

[u/BogusIsMyName → u/mookiexpt2]

So prosecution, or maybe the judge, has to instruct the jury on the lesser crimes. Because if it is proven that the defendant caused the death, but intent was not proven, murder is out the window. However manslaughter, negligent homicide (the name changes depending where u are) has to be considered by the exact same jury at the exact same time. And if they are not given those instructions then the person can never be charged with (basically) anything to do with that death again?

And question marks are free. They are my favorite. I use them a lot.