Top Law Schools

General Q here. I know of double jeopardy, but can you be tried twice for the same crime, say, if evidence was buried/suppressed/destroyed?


Say Joe is on trial for murder. Joe knows the prosecution is going to find his car, which has a video recording of the murder. So Joe destroys the evidence, and is found not guilty at trial. A year later, the FBI discovers that Joe destroyed this substantial evidence, and somehow the prosecution recovers a another copy of the film anonymously.

Can the gov't put him on trial again? Is this an exception to double jep?

Or if years later after the acquittal, evidence proved that Joe paid the prosecutor to deliberately not present certain evidence? [serious corruption]

I don't believe there's any such exception. Once the jury is empaneled, jeopardy attaches and the jury verdict is the end of the matter for the charged offense. But the government would be able to bring other charges (obstruction of justice etc). And there's also the possibility of a state trial after a federal acquittal and vice versa.

Emma. wrote:I don't believe there's any such exception. Once the jury is empaneled, jeopardy attaches and the jury verdict is the end of the matter for the charged offense. But the government would be able to bring other charges (obstruction of justice etc). And there's also the possibility of a state trial after a federal acquittal and vice versa.

this sounds right to me.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Emma. wrote:I don't believe there's any such exception. Once the jury is empaneled, jeopardy attaches and the jury verdict is the end of the matter for the charged offense. But the government would be able to bring other charges (obstruction of justice etc). And there's also the possibility of a state trial after a federal acquittal and vice versa.

this sounds right to me.

Im guessing in my extreme example of paying off a prosecutor, the trial would be declared a mistrial or something. But from my research, it seems you guys are right; that if someone confesses after trial or if clear and convincing evidence comes about, it doesnt matter.

I don't think you could declare a mistrial even if you figure out later the prosecutor was bribed - you only get a mistrial before a verdict has been reached. And I don't think the government has any option to reopen the verdict after the fact and retry the defendant even if their prosecutor clearly threw the trial - the defendant could, of course, if they were alleging that they got convicted because the prosecutor was bribed. But if the prosecutor was bribed not to present evidence and the defendant is acquitted, too bad for the government. The government doesn't get the same opportunities to appeal that a defendant gets, and if the government tried to appeal on the grounds that their prosecutor was bribed, you don't get any relief for errors that you caused.

(Part of the problem is what you could call standing - if the prosecutor has been bribed not to present evidence, that prosecutor isn't going to move for a mistrial at any point before the verdict. The defendant won't, because he doesn't want to get convicted. There isn't anyone else with a dog in the fight. The public doesn't get to do anything and the prosecutor binds the rest of the government.)

If the judge was bribed, the def was probably never "in jeopardy", so it wouldnt be double jeopardy to retry after a verdict.. Same might go for a prosecutor or juror. Evidence dstruction would probably come with its own criminal charges, and newly discovered evidence of guilt would be too bad for the state.

criminaltheory wrote:If the judge was bribed, the def was probably never "in jeopardy", so it wouldnt be double jeopardy to retry after a verdict.. Same might go for a prosecutor or juror. Evidence dstruction would probably come with its own criminal charges, and newly discovered evidence of guilt would be too bad for the state.

This sounds wrong to me. Has there ever been a case saying the defendant wasn't in jeopardy once the jury was empaneled?

criminaltheory wrote:If the judge was bribed, the def was probably never "in jeopardy", so it wouldnt be double jeopardy to retry after a verdict.. Same might go for a prosecutor or juror. Evidence dstruction would probably come with its own criminal charges, and newly discovered evidence of guilt would be too bad for the state.

This is not right.

You can make it so that you weren't actually "in jeopardy" if you tamper with the jury, actually, IIRC.

EDIT: this is so rare I wouldn't call it a rule

I'll try to find a cite.

Aleman v. Honorable Judges of Circuit Court of Cook Cty., 138 F.3d 302, 307 (7th Cir. 1998)

looks like it's super rare

Also the posture here helps a lot - it's a habeas petition to the 7th Cir, not a direct appeal: "The legal conclusion urged by Aleman [that retrial after acquittal is an absolute bar to retrial] might not be an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, but the highly deferential standard of collateral review leads us to hold that the contrary interpretation--the one adopted by the Illinois courts in this case--is also not unreasonable." Super deferential standard, with terrible facts for the defendant (defendant was notorious Chicago mobster).

yeah. my understanding is that this reflects a type of reasoning that is relatively more common in other common law countries.