|
In response to
"Linky link, and thank you!"
by
colin
|
Interesting legal question, and I can break it down for you. -- (edited)
|
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes a clause that states a person can be put through a trial only once per offense. For example, if someone accused of shoplifting goes through a trial and is found not guilty, the district attorney can't just start a "do over." And the same if they were convicted at trial or reached a settlement agreement in lieu of a trial.
The phrase "double jeopardy" comes from the language of the Fifth Amendment: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ... ."
In this case, this guy was initially indicted on 25 counts of sexual exploitation of children. Rather than go to trial, he chose to plead guilty to the charges.
Later on, the district attorney came back with a second indictment containing more criminal charges against him: one count of sexual exploitation of children and two counts of child molestation.
The dude went back to the trial court and successfully argued that this second indictment was unconstitutional -- that the prosecutors were charging him with additional crimes based on the same offenses that had already been addressed and resolved by his earlier guilty plea agreement.
The trial court agreed with him and dismissed the second indictment because the trial court concluded it was double jeopardy.
The district attorney appealed the trial court's decision. The district attorney (well, actually, the state attorney general or solicitor general representing the district attorney on appeal) went to the appeals court and argued: "No, actually, the second indictment with additional crimes is perfectly fine because those crimes are based on an additional offense, not the same offense. Therefore, new offense, new criminal charges."
The appeals court agreed with that argument, saying that charges in the "second indictment were not part of the same conduct as that alleged in the initial indictment."
Drilling down into the details, when the police raided his home in March 2014, they took a bunch of stuff as evidence: computers, thumb drives, video game consoles, and an iPhone. The first indictment against him was based on information they found in all his stuff -- except for the iPhone. They couldn't search the iPhone because he wouldn't give up the password.
He pled guilty to the first indictment, and then later on, the police were able to obtain the contents of the iPhone. They found additional information -- not already discovered while searching all the other stuff -- that led to the second indictment.
Using the shoplifting example, it's like he had a whole bunch of videos on his computer showing him shoplifting a few Target stores, then -- later on -- the police found video on his iPhone showing he also shoplifted a 7-11. First indictment was for the Target stores; second indictment was for the 7-11.
Does that help?
|
Responses:
|
