Double jeopardy

If a double jeopardy issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will typically rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, certain exemptions are permitted. In Scotland, a new trial can be initiated if, for example, the acquitted has made a credible admission of guilt. Part of English law for over 800 years, it was partially abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where, following demand for change, serious offences may be re-tried following an acquittal if new and compelling evidence is found, and if the trial is found to be in the public's interest. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico, and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right.{{cite web |url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html |title=Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160110221331/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html |archive-date=10 January 2016}}, s 11 (h), Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11{{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html |title=U.S. Constitution|date=30 October 2015}} Amend. V. In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.{{efn|For example, in Western Australia: "It is a defence to a charge of any offence to show that the accused person has already been tried, and convicted or acquitted upon an indictment or prosecution notice on which he might have been convicted of the offence with which he is charged, or has already been convicted or acquitted of an offence of which he might be convicted upon the indictment or prosecution notice on which he is charged."{{mdash}}{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ccaca1913252/|title=Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913, Appendix B, Sch "The Criminal Code" s 17(1)}}}}

In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of {{lang|la|autrefois acquit}} ('previously acquitted') or {{lang|fr|autrefois convict}} ('previously convicted'), with the same effect.{{cite book |title=A Treatise on Military Law and the Practice of Courts-martial |last=Benét |first=Stephen Vincent |date=1864 |page=[https://archive.org/details/cu31924030743268/page/n102 97] |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Gq00AAAAIAAJ }}{{efn|The terminology apparently derived from Law French, and is a mixture of French {{lang|fr|autrefois}} 'at another time [in the past]' and borrowed-English loanwords.{{cite book|title=A History of English Law |last=Holdsworth |first=Sir William |location=London |publisher=Methuen and Sweet & Maxwell |date=1942 |edition=5 |volume=3 |pages=611, 614}}}}

Double jeopardy is not a principle of international law. It does not apply between different countries, unless having been contractually agreed on between those countries as, for example, in the European Union (Art. 54 Schengen Convention), and in various extradition treaties between two countries.

The 72 signatories and 166 parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise, under Article 14 (7): "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country." However, it does not apply to prosecutions by two different sovereigns (unless the relevant extradition treaty expresses a prohibition).

{{Expand section|date=June 2008}}

All members of the Council of Europe (which includes nearly all European countries and every member of the European Union) have adopted the European Convention on Human Rights.{{Cite web|date=3 November 2020|title=Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 005 (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/treaty/005/signatures|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201103214443/https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/treaty/005/signatures|archive-date=3 November 2020|access-date=3 November 2020|website=Council of Europe}} The optional Protocol No. 7 to the convention, Article 4, protects against double jeopardy: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."{{cite web|title=European Convention on Human Rights, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13|url=https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130612091352/http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf |archive-date=2013-06-12 |url-status=live|publisher=Council of Europe|access-date=31 March 2018}}

All EU states ratified this optional protocol except for Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.{{cite web|url=http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=117&CM=8&DF=4/11/2007&CL=ENG|title= Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms|publisher=Council of Europe}} In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.

Member states may, however, implement legislation which allows the reopening of a case if new evidence is found or if there was a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings:

{{Blockquote|The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.}}

In many European countries, the prosecution may appeal an acquittal to a higher court.{{Citation needed|date=February 2018}} This is not regarded as double jeopardy, but as a continuation of the same case. The European Convention on Human Rights permits this by using the phrase "finally acquitted or convicted" as the trigger for prohibiting subsequent prosecution.

In contrast to other common law nations, Australian double jeopardy law has been held to further prevent the prosecution for perjury following a previous acquittal where a finding of perjury would controvert the acquittal. This was confirmed in the case of R v Carroll, where the police found new evidence convincingly disproving Carroll's sworn alibi two decades after he had been acquitted of murder charges in the death of Ipswich child Deidre Kennedy, and successfully prosecuted him for perjury. Public outcry following the overturn of his conviction (for perjury) by the High Court has led to widespread calls for reform of the law along the lines of the England and Wales legislation.

During a Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting of 2007, model legislation to rework double jeopardy laws was drafted,{{cite web|title=Coalition Government to introduce double jeopardy reforms|url=http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2427-coalition-government-to-introduce-double-jeopardy-reforms.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120322221443/http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2427-coalition-government-to-introduce-double-jeopardy-reforms.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=22 March 2012|work=Victoria's double jeopardy laws to be reworked|access-date=4 February 2012}} but there was no formal agreement for each state to introduce it. All states have now chosen to introduce legislation that mirrors COAG's recommendations on "fresh and compelling" evidence.

In New South Wales, retrials of serious cases with a minimum sentence of 20 years or more are now possible even if the original trial preceded the 2006 reform.{{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1735450.htm|title=NSW seeks to scrap double jeopardy principle|newspaper=The World Today|author=Duffy, Conor|date=7 September 2006}} On 17 October 2006, the New South Wales Parliament passed legislation abolishing the rule against double jeopardy in cases where:

• an acquittal of a "life sentence offence" (murder, violent gang rape, large commercial supply or production of illegal drugs) is debunked by "fresh and compelling" evidence of guilt;
• an acquittal of a "15 years or more sentence offence" was tainted (by perjury, bribery, or perversion of the course of justice).

On 30 July 2008, South Australia also introduced legislation to scrap parts of its double jeopardy law, legalising retrials for serious offences with "fresh and compelling" evidence, or if the acquittal was tainted.{{cite web|title=Criminal Law Consolidation (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Act 2008|url=http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/V/A/2008/CRIMINAL%20LAW%20CONSOLIDATION%20(DOUBLE%20JEOPARDY)%20AMENDMENT%20ACT%202008_28/2008.28.UN.RTF|access-date=16 October 2011|archive-date=11 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120111185135/http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/V/A/2008/CRIMINAL%20LAW%20CONSOLIDATION%20(DOUBLE%20JEOPARDY)%20AMENDMENT%20ACT%202008_28/2008.28.UN.RTF|url-status=dead}}

In Western Australia, amendments introduced on 8 September 2011 allow retrial if "new and compelling" evidence is found. It applies to serious offences where the penalty is life imprisonment or imprisonment for 14 years or more. Acquittal because of tainting (witness intimidation, jury tampering, or perjury) also permits retrial.{{cite web|title=Attorney General Christian Porter welcomes double jeopardy law reform|date=8 September 2011|url=http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/attorney-general-christian-porter-welcomes-double-jeopardy-law-reform/story-e6frg13u-1226132121880|access-date=16 October 2011}}{{cite news|title=WA the next state to axe double jeopardy|url=http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-the-next-state-to-axe-double-jeopardy-20110908-1jyu3.html|access-date=16 October 2011|date=8 September 2011}}

In Tasmania, on 19 August 2008, amendments were introduced to allow retrial in serious cases if there is "fresh and compelling" evidence.{{cite web|title=Double Jeopardy Law Reform |url=http://www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php?id=24539 |publisher=Tasmanian Government Media Releases |access-date=16 October 2011 }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}

In Victoria on 21 December 2011, legislation was passed allowing new trials where there is "fresh and compelling DNA evidence, where the person acquitted subsequently admits to the crime, or where it becomes clear that key witnesses have given false evidence". However, retrial applications could only be made for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, arson causing death, serious drug offences and aggravated forms of rape and armed robbery.{{Cite web|url=https://parliament.vic.gov.au/publications/research-papers/bills-backgrounders/8100-criminal-procedure-amendment-double-jeopardy-and-other-matters-bill-2011|title=Parliament of Victoria - Research Papers|website=www.parliament.vic.gov.au}}{{dead link|date=May 2025}}

In Queensland on 18 October 2007, the double jeopardy laws were modified to allow a retrial where fresh and compelling evidence becomes available after an acquittal for murder or a "tainted acquittal" for a crime carrying a 25-year or more sentence. A "tainted acquittal" requires a conviction for an administration of justice offence, such as perjury, that led to the original acquittal.{{cite web | title = Criminal Code Act 1899 – Queensland Legislation – Queensland Government | url=https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1899-009#sch.1-pt.8-ch.68}}

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. However, the prohibition only applies after an accused person has been "finally" convicted or acquitted. Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal based on legal errors. In rare circumstances, when a trial judge made all the factual findings necessary for a finding of guilt but misapplied the law, a court of appeal might also directly substitute an acquittal for a conviction. These cases are not considered double jeopardy because the appeal and the subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires the Crown to show that an error in law was made during the trial and that it contributed to the verdict. It has been argued that this test is unfairly beneficial to the prosecution. For instance, in his book My Life in Crime and Other Academic Adventures, Martin Friedland contends that the rule should be changed so that a retrial is granted only when the error is shown to be responsible for the verdict, not just a factor.

Though the charter permits appeals of acquittals, there are still constitutional limits imposed on the scope of these appeals. In Corp. Professionnelle des Médecins v. Thibault, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of Quebec law that allowed appellate courts to conduct a de novo review of both legal and factual findings. In doing so, it held that the scope of an appeal may not extend to challenging findings of fact where no legal error has been made. At this point, the court reasoned, the process ceases to be an appeal and instead becomes a new trial disguised as one.

A notable example cited by critics of Canada's appeal system is the case of Guy Paul Morin, who was wrongfully convicted in his second trial after the acquittal in his first trial was vacated by the Supreme Court. Another notable use of the system occurred in the case of child murderer Guy Turcotte, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the initial verdict of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder and ordered a second trial after it found that the judge had erroneously instructed the jury. Turcotte was later convicted of second-degree murder in the second trial. Another well-known example is Henry Morgentaler, whose repeated acquittals by juries were overturned on appeal in multiple provinces.

Once all appeals have been exhausted on a case, the judgement is final and the action of the prosecution is closed (code of penal procedure, art. 6), except if the final ruling was forged.{{cite journal|url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006574827&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071154|title=Code of penal procedure, article 6|publisher=Legifrance|access-date=2 January 2012|language=fr}} Prosecution for a crime already judged is impossible even if incriminating evidence has been found. However, a person who has been convicted may request another trial on the grounds of new exculpating evidence through a procedure known as révision.{{cite journal|url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006138099&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071154|title=Code of penal procedure, articles 622–626|publisher=Legifrance|access-date=2 January 2012|language=fr}}

French law allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal.

The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) for the Federal Republic of Germany protects against double jeopardy if a final verdict is pronounced. A verdict is final if nobody appeals against it.

{{blockquote|Nobody shall be punished multiple times for the same crime on the basis of general criminal law.|Art. 103 (3) GG{{cite journal|url=http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/gg/gesamt.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040414231131/http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/gg/gesamt.pdf |archive-date=2004-04-14 |url-status=live|title=Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland|trans-title=Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|language=de}}{{cite journal|url=http://germanlawjournal.com/pdfs/Vol09No12/PDF_Vol_09_No_12_2179-2222_Articles_Currie%202.pdf |author=Currie, David |title=Lochner Abroad: Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection in the Federal Republic of Germany |volume=9 |number=12 |journal=German Law Journal |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120425232851/http://germanlawjournal.com/pdfs/Vol09No12/PDF_Vol_09_No_12_2179-2222_Articles_Currie%202.pdf |archive-date=25 April 2012 }}}}

However, each trial party can appeal against a verdict in the first instance. The prosecution or the defendants can appeal against a judgement if they disagree with it. In this case, the trial starts again in the second instance, the court of appeal (Berufungsgericht), which reconsiders the facts and reasons and delivers a final judgement.

If one of the parties disagrees with the second instance's judgement, they can appeal it only for formal judicial reasons. The case will be checked in the third instance (Revisionsgericht) to see whether all laws were correctly applied.

The rule applies to the whole "historical event, which is usually considered a single historical course of actions the separation of which would seem unnatural". This is true even if new facts come to light that indicate other crimes.

The Penal Procedural Code (Strafprozessordnung) permits a retrial (Wiederaufnahmeverfahren), if it is in favour of the defendant or if the following events have happened:

{{blockquote|A retrial not in favour of the defendant is permissible after a final judgement,

1. if a document that was considered authentic during the trial was actually not authentic or forged,
2. if a witness or authorised expert wilfully or negligently made a wrong deposition or wilfully gave a wrong simple testimony,
3. if a professional or lay judge, who made the decision, had committed a crime by violating his or her duties as a judge in the case
4. if an acquitted defendant makes a credible confession in court or out of court.|§ 362 StPO}}

In the case of an order of summary punishment, which can be issued by the court without a trial for lesser misdemeanours, there is a further exception:

{{blockquote|A retrial not in favour of the defendant is also permissible if the defendant has been convicted in a final order of summary punishment and new facts or evidence have been brought forward, which establish grounds for a conviction of a felony by themselves or in combination with earlier evidence.|§ 373a StPO}}

In Germany, a felony is defined by § 12 (1) StGB as a crime that has a minimum of one year of imprisonment.

A partial protection against double jeopardy is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India, which states "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once".{{cite journal |url=http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/fullact1.asp?tfnm=00%2023 |title=Article 20, Section 2 |journal=Constitution of India |quote=No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101124001157/http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/fullact1.asp?tfnm=00%2023 |archive-date=24 November 2010}} This provision enshrines the concept of autrefois convict, that no one convicted of an offence can be tried or punished a second time. However, it does not extend to autrefois acquit, and so if a person is acquitted of a crime he can be retried. In India, protection against autrefois acquit is a statutory right, not a fundamental one. Such protection is provided by provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than by the Constitution.{{cite book|author1=Sharma|author2=Sharma B.k.|title=Introduction to the Constitution of India|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=srDytmFE3KMC|date=2007|publisher=PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.|isbn=978-81-203-3246-1|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=srDytmFE3KMC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94 94]}}

{{Expand section|date=June 2008}}

The Constitution of Japan, which came into effect on 3 May 1947, states in Article 39 that

{{blockquote|No person shall be held criminally liable for an act which was lawful at the time it was committed, or of which he has been acquitted, nor shall he be placed in double jeopardy.}}

However, in 1950, one defendant was found guilty in the District Court for crimes related to the election law and was sentenced to paying a fine. The prosecutor wanted a stronger sentence and appealed to the High Court. As a result, the defendant was sentenced to three months of imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the sentence was excessive when compared with precedents and that he had been placed in double jeopardy, which was in violation of Article 39. On 27 September 1950, all fifteen judges of the Supreme Court made the Grand Bench Decision to rule against the defendant and declared that a criminal proceeding in the District Court, High Court and Supreme Court is all one case and that there is no double jeopardy. In other words, if the prosecutor appeals against a judgement of not guilty or a guilty decision that they think does not impose a severe enough sentence, the defendant will not be placed in double jeopardy.

On 10 October 2003, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the area of double jeopardy. The case involved Article 235 of the Penal Code, which addresses "simple larceny", and Article 2 of the Law for Prevention and Disposition of Robbery, Theft, etc., which addresses "habitual larceny". The Court ruled that in the event that there are two trials for separate cases of simple larceny, it will not be considered double jeopardy, even if the prosecutor could have charged both of them as a single crime of habitual larceny. The defendant in this case had committed crimes of trespassing and simple larceny on 22 occasions. The defence counsel argued that the crimes were actually one offence of habitual larceny and that charging them as separate counts was double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled that it was within the prosecutor's discretion as to whether to charge the defendant with one count of habitual larceny or to charge them with multiple counts of trespassing and simple larceny. In either case, it is not considered double jeopardy.[http://blog.livedoor.jp/plltakano/archives/54254570.html 刑事裁判を考える：高野隆@ブログ:二重の危険]. Blog.livedoor.jp (14 May 2007). Retrieved on 2 January 2012.{{Cite web |url=https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/12/06/double-jeopardy-and-the-japanese-law/ |title=Double Jeopardy and the Japanese Law |last=Sasakura |first=Kana |date=6 December 2012 |website=The Wrongful Convictions Blog |access-date=29 January 2022}}{{Cite web |url=https://iwate-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/index.php?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=13262&item_no=1&attribute_id=36&file_no=1&page_id=13&block_id=21 |title=The Law of Double Jeopardy in Contemporary Japan |last=Cleary |first=William |publisher=Artes liberales: Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Iwate University |date=June 2005 |website=Iwate University Repository |access-date=29 January 2022}}

In the Netherlands, the state prosecution can appeal a not-guilty verdict at the bench. New evidence can be applied during a retrial at a district court. Thus one can be tried twice for the same alleged crime. If one is convicted at the district court, the defence can make an appeal on procedural grounds to the supreme court. The supreme court might admit this complaint, and the case will be reopened yet again, at another district court. Again, new evidence might be introduced by the prosecution.

On 9 April 2013, the Dutch senate voted 36 "yes" versus 35 "no" in favour of a new law that allows the prosecutor to re-try a person who was found not guilty in court.https://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20130409/voortzetting_behandeling_en/document3/f=/vj919lm102x5.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=May 2025}} This law is limited to offences in which the statute of limitations does not expire. These are offences that are punishable by at least 12 years of imprisonment, and other specific offences.{{Cite web|url=https://maxius.nl/wetboek-van-strafrecht/artikel70|title=Art. 70 Sr - Artikel 70 Wetboek van Strafrecht :: Maxius.nl voorheen Lexius.nl|website=maxius.nl}} Offences that have already expired (such as prior to the change in legislation that abolished the statute of limitations) cannot be retried.

A retrial is only possible by ground of a 'novum': the situation in which new evidence has come to light and in which it seems that, had the judge known of this evidence, the defendant would have been prosecuted. The new evidence has to either be new technical evidence or a trustworthy confession by the defendant or their co-suspect.{{Cite web|url=https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/32044_wet_herziening_ten_nadele|title=Wet herziening ten nadele (32.044)|website=www.eerstekamer.nl}}

{{Expand section|date=April 2011}}

Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan protects a person from being punished or prosecuted more than once for the same offence. Section 403 of [http://www.fmu.gov.pk/docs/laws/Code_of_criminal_procedure_1898.pdf The Code of Criminal Procedure] contemplates a situation where a person having once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction and acquitted by such court cannot be tried again for the same offence or for any other offence based on similar facts. The scope of section 403 is restricted to criminal proceedings and not to civil proceedings and departmental inquiries.

{{Expand section|date=April 2011}}

This principle is incorporated into the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and further elaborated in its Criminal Procedure Act.Article 6. of the Criminal Procedure Act – ZAKONIK O KRIVIČNOM POSTUPKU ("Sl. list SRJ", br. 70/2001 i 68/2002 i "Sl. glasnik RS", br. 58/2004, 85/2005, 115/2005, 85/2005 – dr. zakon, 49/2007, 20/2009 – dr. zakon i 72/2009)

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa forbids a retrial when there has already been an acquittal or a conviction.

{{blockquote|Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right ... not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted ...|Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s. 35(3)(m)}}

Article 13 of the South Korean constitution provides that no citizen shall be placed in double jeopardy.[https://korea.assembly.go.kr:447/res/low_01_read.jsp?boardid=1000000035 CHAPTER II Rights and Duties of the Citizens], Constitution of the republic of Korea.

{{see also|Criminal Justice Act 2003}}

Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The doctrines of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict persisted as part of the common law from the time of the Norman conquest of England; they were regarded as essential elements for protection of the subject's liberty and respect for due process of law in that there should be finality of proceedings. There were only three exceptions, all relatively recent, to the rules:

• The prosecution has a right of appeal against acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 ss.28, 111; Supreme Court Act 1981 s.28
• A retrial is permissible if the interests of justice so require, following an appeal against conviction by a defendant.Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.7
• A "tainted acquittal", where there has been an offence of interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness, can be challenged in the High Court.Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 s.54

In Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254, the Law Lords ruled that a defendant could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the same set of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted unless there are "special circumstances" proven by the prosecution. There is little case law on the meaning of "special circumstances", but it has been suggested that the emergence of new evidence would suffice.Attorney-General for Gibraltar v Leoni, Court of Appeal, 1999 (unreported); see Law Com CP No 156, para 2.24

A defendant who had been convicted of an offence could be given a second trial for an aggravated form of that offence if the facts constituting the aggravation were discovered after the first conviction.R v Thomas [1950] 1 KB 26 By contrast, a person who had been acquitted of a lesser offence could not be tried for an aggravated form even if new evidence became available.R v Beedie [1998] QB 356, Dingwall, 2000

Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light. The Law Commission later added its support to this in its report "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" (2001). A parallel report into the criminal justice system by Lord Justice Auld, a past Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report six months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that "the exceptions should [...] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify."{{cite web|title=A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales by The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld |url=http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ |archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090607141016/http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=7 June 2009 |access-date=5 January 2012 |date=September 2001 }} 1999 was also the year of a highly publicised case in which a man, David Smith, was convicted of the murder of a prostitute after having been acquitted of the "almost identical"{{cite news |title=Prostitute murderer gets life |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/552350.stm |access-date=20 April 2022 |publisher=BBC News |date=8 December 1999}} murder of sex worker Sarah Crump six years previously.{{cite news |title=Killer beat earlier murder charge |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/556081.stm |access-date=20 April 2022 |publisher=BBC News |date=8 December 1999}}{{cite news |title=Police probe killer sadist Life for lorry driver who was cleared of carbon-copy murder of prostitute in 1993 |url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12203896.police-probe-killer-sadist-life-for-lorry-driver-who-was-cleared-of-carbon-copy-murder-of-prostitute-in-1993/ |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=HeraldScotland |date=9 December 1999}} Because of the double jeopardy laws that existed at the time, Smith could not be re-tried for Crump's murder, despite police insisting they were not looking for anybody else and that the case was closed.{{cite news |last1=Hope |first1=Christopher |title=David Smith's size 14 feet could link him to three more murders |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3525337/David-Smiths-size-14-feet-could-link-him-to-three-more-murders.html |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=The Telegraph |date=28 November 2008}}{{cite news |last1=Widdup |first1=Ellen |title='Bigfoot' print may link killer to vice girl deaths |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/bigfoot-print-may-link-killer-to-vice-girl-deaths-6831350.html |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=Evening Standard|location=London |date=13 April 2012}}{{efn|Following the 2003 reforms, Smith's acquittal for murdering Crump was overturned in 2023 and he was tried and convicted.{{cite news |title=Ripper-style killer found guilty of Southall sex worker murder 30 years after being cleared of crime |url=https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-05-24/ripper-style-killer-guilty-of-murder-30-years-after-being-cleared-of-crime |access-date=24 May 2023 |work=ITV News |date=24 May 2023}}}}

Both Jack Straw (then Home Secretary) and William Hague (then Leader of the Opposition) favoured the measures suggested by the Auld Report.{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1373237/Straw-moves-to-scrap-Magna-Carta-double-jeopardy-law.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1373237/Straw-moves-to-scrap-Magna-Carta-double-jeopardy-law.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Straw moves to scrap Magna Carta double jeopardy law |date=5 November 2000|newspaper=The Telegraph|access-date=13 October 2014}}{{cbignore}} These recommendations were implemented—not uncontroversially at the time—within the Criminal Justice Act 2003,{{cite web|last=Broadbridge |first=Sally |title=Research paper 02/74: The Criminal Justice Bill: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals |url=http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf |publisher=UK parliament |access-date=5 January 2012 |date=2 December 2002 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061120235713/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf |archive-date=20 November 2006 }}{{cite web |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/part/10/enacted |title=Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) Part 10: Retrial for serious offences |publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office |date=20 November 2003 |access-date=5 June 2014 }} and this provision came into force in April 2005.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4406129.stm Double jeopardy law ushered out], BBC News. 3 April 2005 It opened certain serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".[https://web.archive.org/web/20080915092707/http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section19/chapter_j.html Retrial of Serious Offences]. The CPS. Retrieved on 2 January 2012. Then Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, said that he expected no more than a handful of cases to be brought in a year.

Pressure by Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, Billy Dunlop, was initially acquitted and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the demand for legal change.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5150346.stm Murder conviction is legal first], BBC News. 11 September 2006 On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Hogg's murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury, but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal, in November 2005, for permission for a new trial, which was granted.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4426038.stm Man faces double jeopardy retrial], BBC News. 10 November 2005[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5333230.stm The law of 'double jeopardy'], BBC News. 11 September 2006 Dunlop pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5412264.stm Double jeopardy man is given life], BBC News. 6 October 2006

On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be retried and found guilty of murder by a jury (Dunlop having confessed). In 1996 Weston had been acquitted of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995, but following the discovery in 2009 of compelling new evidence (Thompson's blood on Weston's boots) he was arrested and tried for a second time. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 13 years.{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-11982681 |title='Double jeopardy' man guilty of Vikki Thompson murder |date=13 December 2010 |publisher=BBC News Oxford |access-date=13 December 2010 }}

In December 2018, convicted paedophile Russell Bishop was also retried and found guilty by a jury for the Babes in the Wood murders of two 9-year-old girls, Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway, on 9 October 1986. At the original trial in 1987, a key piece of the prosecution's case rested on the recovery of a discarded blue sweatshirt. Under questioning, Bishop denied that the sweatshirt belonged to him, but his girlfriend, Jennifer Johnson, alleged the clothing was Bishop's, before she changed her story in the trial, telling the jury she had never seen the top before.{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/10/russell-bishop-guilty-babes-wood-murders/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/10/russell-bishop-guilty-babes-wood-murders/ |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Babes in the Wood murders: after the police blunders and killer's deceit, how justice caught up with Russell Bishop, 32 years on|last1=Evans|first1=Martin|date=10 December 2018|newspaper=The Telegraph|access-date=10 December 2018|last2=Sawer|first2=Patrick|issn=0307-1235}}{{cbignore}} Attributed to a series of blunders in the prosecution's case, Bishop was acquitted by the jury after two hours of deliberations. Three years later, Bishop was found guilty of the abduction, molestation, and attempted murder of a 7-year-old girl in February 1990. In 2014, re-examined by modern forensics, the sweatshirt contained traces of Bishop's DNA, and also had fibres on it from both of the girls' clothing. Tapings taken from Karen Hadaway's arm also yielded traces of Bishop's DNA.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/10/man-found-guilty-of-1986-brighton-babes-in-the-wood-murders-karen-hadaway-nicola-fellows|title=Man found guilty of 1986 Brighton 'babes in the wood' murders|last=Quinn|first=Ben|date=10 December 2018|newspaper=The Guardian|location=London|access-date=10 December 2018|issn=0261-3077}} At the 2018 trial, a jury of seven men and five women returned a guilty verdict after two-and-a-half hours of deliberation.

On 14 November 2019, Michael Weir became the first person to be twice found guilty of a murder. He was originally convicted of the murder of Leonard Harris in 1999, but the conviction was quashed in 2000 by the Court of Appeal on a technicality. In 2018, new DNA evidence had been obtained and palm prints from both murder scenes were matched to Weir. Twenty years after the original conviction, Weir was convicted of the murder for a second time.{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50418212 |title=Michael Weir guilty of 1998 'double jeopardy' murders |date=14 November 2019 |publisher=BBC News |access-date=14 November 2019 }}

In February 2020, Merseyside Police called for further reform to the double jeopardy law in England so as to allow previously acquitted suspects to be re-interviewed by police.{{cite news |title=Whiston boys' murders: 'Double jeopardy reform needed' |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-51551471 |access-date=9 July 2023 |publisher=BBC News |date=18 February 2020}} The force had wanted to re-interview a suspect in the unsolved case of the murders of John Greenwood and Gary Miller who had been acquitted of the crime in 1981, but were not permitted to do so.{{cite news |title=Families still seeking justice for two boys murdered nearly 40-years-ago |url=https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2020-02-18/families-still-seeking-justice-for-two-boys-murdered-nearly-40-years-ago |access-date=9 July 2023 |work=ITV News |date=18 February 2020}} The force had also not been allowed to re-charge the man of murder in 2019, causing them to publicly request that the law be changed and stating: "We believe being able to re-question suspects could potentially lead to being able to demonstrate the new and compelling evidence needed to reopen particular cases, including the murders of John Greenwood and Gary Miller".{{cite news |title=Whiston boys' 1980 murder: Police investigation 'lacked thoroughness' |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-48220446 |access-date=9 July 2023 |publisher=BBC News |date=10 May 2019}}

The double jeopardy rule no longer applies absolutely in Scotland since the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force on 28 November 2011. The Act introduced three broad exceptions to the rule: where the acquittal had been tainted by an attempt to pervert the course of justice; where the accused admitted their guilt after acquittal; and where there was new evidence.[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2011/16 "Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011"] legislation.gov.uk retrieved 6 January 2012.

In Northern Ireland, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, effective 18 April 2005,[http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=11277 "Commencement of Provisions – Criminal Justice Act of 2003,"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928112743/http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=11277 |date=28 September 2011 }} Northern Ireland Office. makes certain "qualifying offence" (including murder, rape, kidnapping, specified sexual acts with young children, specified drug offences, defined acts of terrorism, as well as in certain cases attempts or conspiracies to commit the foregoing)[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_32#sch5 Schedule 5 Part 2] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702233813/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_32#sch5 |date=2 July 2010 }} of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. subject to retrial after acquittal (including acquittals obtained before passage of the Act) if there is a finding by the Court of Appeal that there is "new and compelling evidence".[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_10#pt10 "Retrial for serious offences,"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100123041757/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_10#pt10 |date=23 January 2010 }} Part 10 of Criminal Justice Act of 2003.

In the United States, the protection in common law against double jeopardy is maintained through the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides:

{{blockquote|... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ...{{cite book |last=Harper |first=Timothy |title=The Complete Idiot's Guide to the U.S. Constitution |publisher=Penguin Group |date=2 October 2007 |page=109 |isbn=978-1-59257-627-2 |quote= However, the Fifth Amendment contains several other important provisions for protecting your rights. It is the source of the double jeopardy doctrine, which prevents authorities from trying a person twice for the same crime ...}}}}

Conversely, double jeopardy comes with a key exception. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, multiple sovereigns can indict a defendant for the same crime. The federal and state governments can have overlapping criminal laws, so a criminal offender may be convicted in individual states and federal courts for exactly the same crime or for different crimes arising out of the same facts.Gamble v. United States, {{Ussc|587||2019|docket=17-646}}. However, in 2016, the Supreme Court held in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, {{Ussc|579||2016|docket=15-108}}. The dual sovereignty doctrine has been the subject of substantial scholarly criticism.{{Specify|reason=What kind of criticism? This sentence is saying that there is criticism of the dual sovereignty doctrine, without elaborating on what that criticism is.|date=May 2024}}Adler, Adam J. "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem". Yale Law Journal. N.p., Nov. 2014. Web. 15 November 2015. [http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/dual-sovereignty-due-process-and-duplicative-punishment-a-new-solution-to-an-old-problem]

As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial".{{cite court|litigants=United States v. Ball |vol=163 |opinion= 662 |date=1896 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/662/case.html |access-date=2 May 2018 }} The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.North Carolina v. Pearce, {{Ussc|395|711|1969}}. Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is impanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted.Crist v. Bretz, {{Ussc|437|28|1978}}.

With two exceptions, the government is not permitted to appeal or retry the defendant once jeopardy attaches to a trial unless the case does not conclude. Conditions which constitute "conclusion" of a case include

• After the entry of an acquittal, whether:
• an acquittal by jury verdict
• a directed verdict before the case is submitted to the jury,Fong Foo v. United States, {{Ussc|369|141|1962}}.Sanabria v. United States, {{Ussc|437|54|1978}}.
• a directed verdict after a deadlocked jury,United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., {{Ussc|430|564|1977}}.
• an appellate reversal for sufficiency (except by direct appeal to a higher appellate court),Burks v. United States, {{Ussc|437|1|1978}}. or
• an "implied acquittal" via conviction of a lesser included offence.Green v. United States, {{Ussc|355|184|1957}}.
• re-litigating against the same defence a fact necessarily found by the jury in a prior acquittal,Ashe v. Swenson, {{Ussc|397|436|1970}}. even if the jury hung on other counts.Yeager v. United States, {{Ussc|557|110|2009}}. In such a situation, the government is barred by collateral estoppel.

In these cases, the trial is concluded and the prosecution is precluded from appealing or retrying the defendant over the offence to which they were acquitted.

This principle does not prevent the government from appealing a pre-trial motion to dismissSerfass v. United States, {{Ussc|420|377|1973}}. or other non-merits dismissal,United States v. Scott, {{Ussc|437|82|1978}}. or a directed verdict after a jury conviction,Wilson v. United States, {{Ussc|420|332|1975}}. nor does it prevent the trial judge from entertaining a motion for reconsideration of a directed verdict, if the jurisdiction has so provided by rule or statute.Smith v. Massachusetts, {{Ussc|543|462|2005}}. Nor does it prevent the government from retrying the defendant after an appellate reversal other than for sufficiency,Ball v. United States, {{Ussc|163|662|1896}}. including habeas corpus,United States v. Tateo, {{Ussc|377|463|1964}}. or "thirteenth juror" appellate reversals notwithstanding sufficiencyTibbs v. Florida, {{Ussc|457|31|1982}}. on the principle that jeopardy has not "terminated".

The dual sovereignty doctrine allows a federal prosecution of an offence to proceed regardless of a previous state prosecution for that same offenceAbbate v. United States, {{Ussc|359|187|1959}}. and vice versaBartkus v. Illinois, {{Ussc|359|121|1959}}. because "an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offence against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each".United States v. Lanza, {{Ussc|260|377|1922}}. The doctrine is solidly entrenched in the law, but there has been a traditional reluctance in the federal executive branch to gratuitously wield the power it grants, due to public opinion being generally hostile to such action.Wayne R. LaFave, et al., Criminal Procedure § 25.5(a) (4th ed. 2004).

There are two exceptions to bans on retrying defendants. If a defendant bribed a judge into acquitting him or her, the defendant was not in jeopardy and can be retried.{{Cite court|litigants=Aleman v. Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County|vol=138|reporter=F.3d|opinion=302|court=7th Cir.|date=1998|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12470920553407736097&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006|access-date=7 September 2019}} A member of the armed forces can be retried by court-martial in a military court, even if he or she has been previously acquitted by a civilian court.{{cite web|author=SBM Blog |url=http://sbmblog.typepad.com/sbm-blog/2012/02/double-jeopardy-and-the-military-a-lurid-case-in-point.html |title=Double Jeopardy and the Military: A Sensational Case in Point – SBM Blog |publisher=Sbmblog.typepad.com |date=14 November 2011 |access-date=14 May 2012}} This exception was used to prosecute Timothy Hennis for the Eastburn family murders after his previous trial acquitted him.{{cite web|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/18/us/death-row-stories-hennis/index.html|title=Triple murder suspect goes from guilty to innocent and back to guilty|publisher=CNN|date=18 July 2014|last=Patterson|first=Thom}}

An individual can be prosecuted by both the United States and an Indian tribe for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions; it was established by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lara that as the two are separate sovereigns, prosecuting a crime under both tribal and federal law does not attach double jeopardy.{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/united-states-v-lara-brief-merits|title=United States v. Lara – Brief (Merits)|date=21 October 2014|website=justice.gov|access-date=5 March 2020}}

In Blockburger v. United States (1932), the Supreme Court announced the following test: the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not.Blockburger v. United States, {{Ussc|284|299|1932}} See, e.g., Brown v. Ohio, {{Ussc|432|161|1977}}. Blockburger is the default rule, unless the governing statute legislatively intends to depart; for example, Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) may be punished separately from its predicates,Garrett v. United States, {{Ussc|471|773|1985}}.Rutledge v. United States, {{Ussc|517|292|1996}}. as can conspiracy.United States v. Felix, {{Ussc|503|378|1992}}.

The Blockburger test, originally developed in the multiple punishments context, is also the test for prosecution after conviction.Missouri v. Hunter, {{Ussc|459|359|1983}}. In Grady v. Corbin (1990), the Court held that a double jeopardy violation could lie even where the Blockburger test was not satisfied,Grady v. Corbin, {{Ussc|495|508|1990}}. but Grady was later distinguished in United States v. Felix (1992), when the court reverted to the Blockburger test without completely dismissing the Grady interpretation. The court eventually overruled Grady in United States v. Dixon (1993).United States v. Dixon, {{Ussc|509|688|1993}}.

The rule for mistrials depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad faith", i.e. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial because the government specifically wanted a mistrial.Oregon v. Kennedy, {{Ussc|456|667|1982}}. If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial.Arizona v. Washington, {{Ussc|434|497|1978}}. The same standard governs mistrials granted sua sponte.

Retrials are not common, due to the legal expenses to the government. However, in the mid-1980s Georgia antique dealer James Arthur Williams was tried a record four times for murder over the shooting of Danny Hansford, and after three mistrials was finally acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4195|title=James Williams – National Registry of Exonerations|website=law.umich.edu|access-date=3 January 2020}} The case is recounted in the book Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,{{Cite web|url=https://www.savannahmagazine.com/25-years-after-midnight/|title=25 Years After Midnight|last=Domet|first=Sarah|date=13 September 2019|website=Savannah Magazine|access-date=3 January 2020|archive-date=6 October 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191006153644/https://www.savannahmagazine.com/25-years-after-midnight/|url-status=dead}} which was adapted into a film directed by Clint Eastwood (the movie combines the four trials into one).{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/midnight-in-the-garden-of-good-and-evil-1997|title=Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil movie review (1997) {{!}} Roger Ebert|last=Ebert|first=Roger|website=rogerebert.com|access-date=3 January 2020}}

{{Portal|Law}}

• Sam Sheppard
• Emmett Till
• David Smith, British man acquitted of the murder of a woman in 1993, only to be convicted of murdering another woman in an "almost identical" case in 1999

{{notelist}}

{{Reflist}}

• {{cite book |last1=Sigler |first1=Jay |title=Double jeopardy; the development of a legal and social policy |url=https://archive.org/details/doublejeopardyde0000sigl |url-access=registration |date=1969 |publisher=Cornell University Press [1969] |ref=Double jeopardy -- United States}}

; In favour of the current rule prohibiting retrial after acquittal

• [http://www.agd.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/pdo/ll_pdo.nsf/pages/PDO_ruleagainstdoublejeopardy NSW Public Defenders Office]

; Opposing the rule that prohibits retrial after acquittal

• [http://www.autrefoisacquit.info/index.html Questioning Double Jeopardy]
• [http://www.doublejeopardyreform.org DoubleJeopardyReform.Org]

Research and Notes produced for the UK Parliament, summarising the history of legal change, views and responses, and analyses:

• {{cite web|last=Broadbridge |first=Sally |title=Research paper 02/74: The Criminal Justice Bill: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals |url=http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf |publisher=UK parliament |access-date=5 January 2012 |date=2 December 2002 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061120235713/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf |archive-date=20 November 2006}}
• {{cite web|last=Broadbridge|first=Sally|title=Double jeopardy|url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01082/|publisher=UK Parliament|access-date=5 January 2012|date=28 January 2009}}

• [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/ FindLaw Annotation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20060110030555/http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/DJ/index.htm Double Jeopardy Game on uscourts.gov] (archived from [http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/DJ/index.htm the original] on 2006-01-10)
• Jack McCall (famous murder case involving a claim of double jeopardy)

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20071119043436/http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/lrc119/lrc_119.html Law Reform Commission of Ireland Consultation Paper on Prosecution Appeals Brought on Indictment]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Double Jeopardy}}

Category:Criminal procedure

Category:Defense (legal)

Category:Legal terminology