Also known as: double jeopardy cases · double jeopardy rulings · double jeopardy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional protection embodied in the Fifth Amendment that bars the government from prosecuting a person more than once for the same offense after jeopardy has attached in the initial proceeding. The protection extends to successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses arising from identical conduct and applies to state proceedings through incorporation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dominic Drake was convicted of armed robbery after holding up a convenience store and emptying the cash registers. Prosecutors later charged him with larceny for taking the same cash during the identical incident. The court dismissed the larceny charge because the prior conviction for the greater offense already resolved every element of the lesser included crime arising from the same conduct.
Delilah Duran was acquitted in federal court on bribery charges arising from her work as a procurement officer. State prosecutors then filed identical charges in state court based on the same payments. The state court dismissed the prosecution because the Double Jeopardy Clause applies equally to state proceedings.
Denise Donovan faced trial on environmental dumping charges. After the jury was sworn and opening statements concluded, the judge declared a mistrial. The court barred retrial on the same charges because jeopardy had attached and no manifest necessity justified the dismissal.
Damian Decker received a life sentence after a jury deadlocked on aggravating circumstances in a capital murder case. At a second trial the state sought the death penalty using the same conduct. The court permitted the death sentence because the first proceeding produced no acquittal-like finding that the state failed to prove an aggravating factor.
Daphne Doyle was acquitted in one state for data theft involving servers in both states. Prosecutors in the neighboring state then charged her with identical conduct under that state's statutes. The court allowed the second prosecution because each sovereign may enforce its own criminal laws even when the underlying acts are the same.
Diane Dawson was acquitted of directing illegal waste disposal after a jury found another source responsible. Prosecutors later charged her with conspiring to conceal evidence of the same dumping. The court permitted the new charge because the conspiracy offense required proof of an agreement element absent from the prior acquittal.
Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn. Once that occurs the Double Jeopardy Clause generally bars retrial for the same offense unless the proceeding ends in a manner consistent with double jeopardy principles such as manifest necessity or defendant consent.
Supporting sources
Yes. Once jeopardy attaches in a prosecution for a greater offense the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the state from later prosecuting a lesser included offense arising from the same conduct because every element of the lesser offense was necessarily decided in the first trial.
…of acquittal could be overturned and a defendant retried would run afoul of the Sixth Amendment jury-trial guarantee and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the federal system it also would be unconstitutional to prohibit a President from deciding, as an act of executive clemency, to reprieve one sentenced to…
…Monge was another recidivism case in which the question presented and the bulk of the Court's analysis related to the scope of double jeopardy
…of Dunnigan may be limited, we need not overrule it. In Witte v. United States , 515 U. S. 389 (1995), we held that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar a prosecution for conduct that had provided the basis for an enhancement of the defendant's sentence in a prior
…other hand, this Court in Palko v. Connecticut , 302 U. S. 319 (1937), refused to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment made the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment obligatory on the States. In so refusing, however, the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Cardozo, was careful to emphasize that “immunities that are valid…
…Supreme Court of Errors ruled that the answers to these questions could not tend to incriminate him because the defenses of double jeopardy and the running of the one-year statute of limitations on misdemeanors would defeat any prosecution growing out of his answers to the first five questions. As for the sixth question, the…
Supporting sources
No. The Double Jeopardy Clause applies to the states through incorporation so a state prosecution is subject to the same constitutional bar that prevents successive federal prosecutions for the same offense.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the state from retrying an issue that a prior jury resolved in the defendant's favor even when new evidence is discovered later.
Supporting sources
Retrial is permitted only if the mistrial was justified by manifest necessity. Administrative disruptions or prosecutorial negligence do not meet that standard so the government cannot retry the defendant.
Supporting sources