![]() ![]() ![]() The Supreme Court found that defendant’s jeopardy for first degree murder ended when the jury concluded at this first trial that he was not guilty of first-degree murder. Because the jury found Green guilty of second-degree murder at the first trial, he should have been retried only on that charge. Rather, Green was tried and convicted for the higher offense of first-degree murder. The Supreme Court further reasoned that on remand, Green was not tried for the same offense of second-degree murder. The Court described the importance of double jeopardy, stating “the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.” On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the first-degree murder conviction based on the reasoning that the second trial put the defendant in jeopardy twice for the same offense in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Appeals confirmed the conviction and rejected his former jeopardy defense. The defendant was again found guilty-this time of arson and first-degree murder.ĭefendant appealed following the second trial on the basis of former jeopardy. The case was remanded to the trial court for a retrial. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the conviction on the basis that it was not supported by the evidence. The trial judge entered the judgment and dismissed the jury. The jury verdict was silent as to the first-degree murder charge. The jury found Green guilty of arson and second-degree murder. In Green, the defendant was tried for one count of arson and a second count of first-degree murder in relation to the same incident. The Supreme Court discussed the importance of double jeopardy in Green v. Double Jeopardy applies to criminal felony, misdemeanor, and juvenile cases. However, a defendant can be tried a second time when his prior conviction for that same offense has been set aside on appeal. The general concept of Double Jeopardy is that once a defendant has been tried and acquitted of an offense, he or she cannot be prosecuted again on the same charge. The Fifth Amendment specifically states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Most state courts adopted statutes with similar language. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that criminal defendants cannot be prosecuted twice for the same crime. This article examines each doctrine and the preclusive effect that each has to prevent parties from relitigating the same cases, issues, and causes of action. There are three key doctrines that ensure fairness and finality in both criminal and civil trials: double jeopardy, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Related to the concept of a fair trial is the idea that judgments following trial should be final so that the parties can have closure and not live in fear of being dragged into court over the same claim. The Constitutional guarantee to due process means that litigants, and more specifically defendants, are entitled to a fair trial. The concepts of due process and finality of judgments are cornerstones of the American litigation system. Comparing Double Jeopardy, Res Judicata, and Collateral Estoppel ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |