Challenging Convictions on Grounds of Double Jeopardy

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits subjecting any individual "for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This clause is commonly referred to as the Double Jeopardy Clause. Many individuals interpret this constitutional protection against double jeopardy to mean that a person cannot be retried for a crime for which they have been acquitted or convicted.

WHAT DOES DOUBLE JEOPARDY MEAN?

The Double Jeopardy Clause not only bars successive prosecutions but also prohibits imposing multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct. Thus, a person who has been convicted cannot be sentenced to, for instance, 10 years in prison and then subsequently sentenced to another 10 years for the same crime. Double jeopardy is a crucial legal concept, particularly as many criminal cases involve numerous counts and charges. A proficient team of criminal defense attorneys must be well-versed in double jeopardy legal doctrine to ensure that the accused is not subjected to multiple prosecutions for the same behavior and does not face multiple penalties. Double jeopardy arguments based on these grounds can, at times, lead to convictions being overturned on appeal. Here's a concise explanation.

Double jeopardy law is intricate. For instance, identical conduct may serve as the basis for separate prosecutions for distinct crimes without violating double jeopardy. However, your criminal defense team must be vigilant, as the distinct crimes must genuinely be different. Legally speaking, crimes are considered distinct if each one necessitates proof of at least one fact or element that the other does not.

As another illustration, double jeopardy prohibits prosecutors from securing multiple convictions by dissecting the behavior into fragments. For instance, suppose a criminal statute penalizes armed robbery, defined as theft involving the use of a deadly weapon. If the accused used a handgun, a shotgun, and a knife during the robbery, double jeopardy generally precludes the prosecution from filing three separate charges — one for each deadly weapon — based on the same set of circumstances. It's noteworthy that a "gap in time" might allow for more than one charge because, if there is a pause in the criminal conduct, one crime may be considered to have ceased while another may be deemed to have commenced at a later time.

Double jeopardy also extends to what are known as "predicate" offenses and crimes derived from those predicates. For instance, the Hobbes Act, a federal law, penalizes armed robbery, which could involve various weapons such as a knife or blunt object. Another federal law punishes using, brandishing, or discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. If the armed robbery was committed using a handgun, then the Hobbes Act crime serves as the "predicate" offense for a separate charge related to using a handgun during a "crime of violence." Double jeopardy prevents the prosecution from pursuing more than one subsequent charge based on a single predicate offense. Prosecutors often attempt this maneuver. For instance, hypothetically speaking, if the accused armed robber used a handgun, brandished it, and also discharged it during the robbery, prosecutors might endeavor to assert that three subsequent crimes were committed. However, the double jeopardy doctrine prohibits this.