Criminal Law. Double Jeopardy

[There are many different ways in which law and truth may be said to be related. It is perhaps in the criminal trial that connections between them are of most signifi- cance. An orthodox way of describing a criminal trial is that the criminal procedure is seeking to establish the truth concerning some past event, and that success of the procedure is measured by how close its outcome converges with that truth. Crimi- nal justice presents the community with challenging dilemmas in this regard, such as those arising from the notion of double jeopardy. This paper discusses the Rawl- sian notions of ‘imperfect’, ‘perfect’ and ‘pure’ procedural justice, and suggests against Rawls that it is pure procedural justice that best represents what we want from a criminal justice system. Good procedure makes good criminal law. A com- parison is made with the writings of Habermas and Posner, and given that pure procedural justice eschews transcendental truths, some brief comments are made on the convergence of that position with the realm of the fictional.]

Download Full-text

Criminal Law. Double Jeopardy. Convention under State Statute No Bar to Proceedings under the Volstead Act

Harvard Law Review ◽

10.2307/1328251 ◽

1923 ◽

Vol 36 (5) ◽

pp. 619

Keyword(s):

Criminal Law ◽

Double Jeopardy

Download Full-text

Multiple Criminal Trials

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223700003988 ◽

1973 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. 32-90

Author(s):

Moshe Shalgi

Keyword(s):

Criminal Law ◽

Common Law ◽

The United States ◽

Criminal Behaviour ◽

Double Jeopardy ◽

Criminal Trials ◽

European Tradition ◽

Multiple Trials ◽

The Subject ◽

The Common

The prohibition against multiple trials for the same matter is a basic principle of criminal law and long a principle deeply rooted in European tradition. Many jurisdictions consider it important enough to deserve inclusion in their constitutions. Nevertheless the relevant provisions have been applied in quite diverse patterns throughout the various common law jurisdictions, and within each of them have developed unsystematically. They have been the subject of severe criticism down to the present time.Three main doctrines have been developed in the common law jurisdictions:(a)Former trial:This is better known in England asautrefois acquitandautrefois convict, and in the United States as double jeopardy. A man can be tried only once for his criminal behaviour. Once a lawful verdict has been rendered he is protected against further prosecution for the same matter. Underautrefois acquitandautrefois convicta verdict must have been formerly pronounced in the matter which is charged in the subsequent indictment. Under double jeopardy it is enough that the defendant has been in jeopardy of conviction (for the same matter) in former proceedings.

Download Full-text