# O.J. Simpson and Double Jeopardy.



## Andrew P.C. (Sep 18, 2007)

> While most Americans are good people, we do have our share of villains in this country. A good example is O.J.Simpson, a man who literally got away with murder.



I went to this article and the quote above made me think about one of our laws: no double-jeopardy. So, I have a question: Do you think double-jeopardy is right? why or why not? Do you think that O.J. should be tried again since we have more evidence this time? why or why not?


----------



## elnwood (Sep 18, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> > While most Americans are good people, we do have our share of villains in this country. A good example is O.J.Simpson, a man who literally got away with murder.
> 
> 
> 
> I went to this article and the quote above made me think about one of our laws: no double-jeopardy. So, I have a question: Do you think double-jeopardy is right? why or why not? Do you think that O.J. should be tried again since we have more evidence this time? why or why not?



I think double-jeopardy laws are good. I believe a case can be retried if there is sufficient new evidence. What's the new evidence?


----------



## Dena (Sep 18, 2007)

i could be completely wrong, but i thought the law was that if you were once CONVICTED for a crime, assumingly that you didn't commit yet, and then you got out of prison and then DID actually committ it, that you couldn't be tried for it again.

am i wrong?


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 18, 2007)

Dena said:


> i could be completely wrong, but i thought the law was that if you were once CONVICTED for a crime, assumingly that you didn't commit yet, and then you got out of prison and then DID actually committ it, that you couldn't be tried for it again.
> 
> am i wrong?



Dena, you are right. That's what "jeopardy" is all about. If you undergo a trial for a crime, you are in "jeopardy" of being convicted and suffering state-inflicted punishment. The prohibition against double jeopardy means that you cannot face criminal prosecution for the same crime twice.

There are a lot of nuances, though. For instance, you could be tried for some crime (like assault) in state court and be acquitted, and then later be charged in Federal Court for a different crime (perhaps a federal gun violation). There are different rules that apply, but the general rule is that you can't be criminally charged for the same specific acts more than once.


----------



## CDM (Sep 18, 2007)

Dena said:


> i could be completely wrong, but i thought the law was that if you were once CONVICTED for a crime, assumingly that you didn't commit yet, and then you got out of prison and then DID actually committ it, that you couldn't be tried for it again.
> 
> am i wrong?



No.

Basically, you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. "Double jeopardy" is found in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be *twice put in jeopardy* (double jeopardy) of life or limb."


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Sep 18, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > > While most Americans are good people, we do have our share of villains in this country. A good example is O.J.Simpson, a man who literally got away with murder.
> ...


I dunno, maybe that he did it


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 18, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew P.C. said:
> ...



Don't you mean "if" he did it?


----------



## SRoper (Sep 18, 2007)

Dena said:


> i could be completely wrong, but i thought the law was that if you were once CONVICTED for a crime, assumingly that you didn't commit yet, and then you got out of prison and then DID actually committ it, that you couldn't be tried for it again.
> 
> am i wrong?



Yes, you're wrong. Hollywood isn't the best source for such things.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 18, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> > While most Americans are good people, we do have our share of villains in this country. A good example is O.J.Simpson, a man who literally got away with murder.
> 
> 
> 
> I went to this article and the quote above made me think about one of our laws: no double-jeopardy. So, I have a question: Do you think double-jeopardy is right? why or why not? Do you think that O.J. should be tried again since we have more evidence this time? why or why not?




Not only are not allowed to be double tried but you are not allowed to be tried for other offenses of the same category. If you are acquitted of first degree murder, you cannot be tried for second degree murder or manslaughter or battery.


----------



## bookslover (Sep 19, 2007)

Now that he's under arrest in Nevada on various charges (the kidnapping charge alone could get him 10-years-to-life), the "tone" I'm getting from this whole affair is along the lines of "we're gonna do it right this time, he's not gonna escape justice again." I think the authorities are making sure that they really have their factual ducks all in a row when they go to the District Attorney.

I'm just glad that those 12 nimrods from the 1994 jury, who let themselves become star-struck with all the celebrity witnesses to Simpson's character and let him off, won't be around for this one.

He's been the teflon criminal - charges for various things in the past have not been made to stick. Let's hope that's not the case this time.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Sep 19, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Now that he's under arrest in Nevada on various charges (the kidnapping charge alone could get him 10-years-to-life), the "tone" I'm getting from this whole affair is along the lines of "we're gonna do it right this time, he's not gonna escape justice again." I think the authorities are making sure that they really have their factual ducks all in a row when they go to the District Attorney.
> 
> I'm just glad that those 12 nimrods from the 1994 jury, who let themselves become star-struck with all the celebrity witnesses to Simpson's character and let him off, won't be around for this one.
> 
> He's been the teflon criminal - charges for various things in the past have not been made to stick. Let's hope that's not the case this time.


Too bad he will sit fat and happy in a three star hotel, excuse me I mean state or federal pen, instead of facing lethal injection, jiffy pop in his lap or the gallows, California even technically still has gas chambers.

He deserves one of the above.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 19, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Now that he's under arrest in Nevada on various charges (the kidnapping charge alone could get him 10-years-to-life), the "tone" I'm getting from this whole affair is along the lines of "we're gonna do it right this time, he's not gonna escape justice again." I think the authorities are making sure that they really have their factual ducks all in a row when they go to the District Attorney.
> 
> I'm just glad that those 12 nimrods from the 1994 jury, who let themselves become star-struck with all the celebrity witnesses to Simpson's character and let him off, won't be around for this one.
> 
> He's been the teflon criminal - charges for various things in the past have not been made to stick. Let's hope that's not the case this time.


Please tell me if/when he goes to trial it won't be televised again! Personally, I'm about as interested in seeing the trial as I am about reading his book.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 19, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Dena said:
> 
> 
> > i could be completely wrong, but i thought the law was that if you were once CONVICTED for a crime, assumingly that you didn't commit yet, and then you got out of prison and then DID actually committ it, that you couldn't be tried for it again.
> ...



What would happen in that case and how is it not double Jeopardy? Could one possibly be convicted of the same crime twice?

CT


----------



## Dena (Sep 19, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Dena said:
> 
> 
> > i could be completely wrong, but i thought the law was that if you were once CONVICTED for a crime, assumingly that you didn't commit yet, and then you got out of prison and then DID actually committ it, that you couldn't be tried for it again.
> ...



wait a minute. I see a couple people have already said I was correct. So...what gives? and what is the reference to Hollywood?


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 19, 2007)

Dena said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > Dena said:
> ...



Dena, I think the problem is that your question could be interpreted to mean that the guy got out of prison and _then_ committed the crime. If that is true, he could be tried and convicted for the crime that he committed (because it was not the crime that he was sent to prison for).

But, as many have pointed out, you cannot be _tried_ (let alone convicted) for the same crime more than once. Different crimes (from different acts), yes, but not the same crime. You cannot even be tried for a different crime from the same acts more than once.

For example, if you point a gun at someone and steal their money, you could be charged with both robbery and assault. But, if for some reason the prosecutor charged you only with robbery and _not_ assault, and then the jury found you not guilty, the prosecutor is prohibited from turning around and charging you with assault. That is basic double jeopardy.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 19, 2007)

Dena said:


> i could be completely wrong, but i thought the law was that if you were once CONVICTED for a crime, assumingly that you didn't commit yet, and then you got out of prison and then DID actually committ it, that you couldn't be tried for it again.
> 
> am i wrong?



Actually, Scot is correct. I see that you asked about being convicted for a crime that hadn't occurred _yet_. If it hadn't occurred yet, then you were wrongly convicted. But that doesn't give you a blank check to go ahead and commit it later. You certainly could be tried and convicted for that.


----------



## Dena (Sep 19, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Dena said:
> 
> 
> > i could be completely wrong, but i thought the law was that if you were once CONVICTED for a crime, assumingly that you didn't commit yet, and then you got out of prison and then DID actually committ it, that you couldn't be tried for it again.
> ...



ah, yes. Now I see. I really was confused! Thanks for clearing it all up.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 19, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Dena said:
> 
> 
> > i could be completely wrong, but i thought the law was that if you were once CONVICTED for a crime, assumingly that you didn't commit yet, and then you got out of prison and then DID actually committ it, that you couldn't be tried for it again.
> ...



So, your point with not trusting Hollywood is that the movie _Double Jeopardy_ with Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd was wrong. In that movie, she was convicted of killing her husband. She didn't do it, as he wasn't dead. He faked his murder so he could begin a new life. When she got out on probation and found out, she went after him. Tommy Lee Jones, who was her parole officer, tells her she can't be convicted twice for killing her husband.

The point being that she was convicted for an act that hadn't occurred. But that did not allow her to 10 years later go out and commit that act.


----------



## SRoper (Sep 20, 2007)

That was the movie I was referring to. Someone in her situation could be legitimately charged because they were two different acts.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 20, 2007)

SRoper said:


> That was the movie I was referring to. Someone in her situation could be legitimately charged because they were two different acts.



Let us say that the penalty for murder in a hypothetical situation is 20 years. A person is convicted of murder (that did not happen) and spend the next 20 years in jail. They are released and then find the person and actually kill them. If the two acts are different then the person should get 20 more years. If they are not different then they would/should not. What say ye?

CT


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 20, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > That was the movie I was referring to. Someone in her situation could be legitimately charged because they were two different acts.
> ...



Two separate issues. The 20 years for wrongful imprisonment can't be returned. At best, a money award of damages can be adjudicated against the state for the miscarriage of justice.

The second scenario is murder. Under your terms, 20 more years, although I think the death penalty is appropriate.


----------

