Double Jeopardy In The Criminal Justice Act 2003

Procedural History: Prosecutors unhappy with the jury’s decision appealed the case to the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors. The Court than included Palko confession and ordered a new trial, the defendant attorney objected claiming the new trial would be in violation of the Fifth Amendment; of double jeopardy. However,

When a defendant is accused of greater offenses, he has the right to have the court charge on lesser offenses included in the indictment, when there is a reasonable theory from the evidence that supports the defendant’s theory.

What does the prosecution need to prove in the courtroom for a person to be convicted of a criminal offence? (2 marks)

The four basic components of the Fifth Amendment include: double jeopardy, due process, the right to be heard by a jury and safeguards against self-incrimination. Double jeopardy is when the individual can only be tried for a crime once. In the event that they are acquitted and new information surfaces, they cannot be retried again for the same crime. Instead, new charges would have to be filed showing the individual violated another area of the law. (Sundahl, 2011)

Both models’ fundamental principal is discovering the truth. The crime control model focuses on the truth regardless of how it is reached whereas the due process model places restrictions on what the state can do to discover the truth. In addition, the crime control model aims for the repression of criminal conduct, whilst the due process model aims to prevent and eliminate crime. Packer’s intentions were not to create two separate models; rather he intended to create a spectrum from one extreme to the other. The Scottish legal system does not wholly consist of crime control elements nor due process elements. It is a mixture of both of these models that attempts to balance the rights of the state to secure a conviction, with the rights of the accused to a fair trial. It can be seen that there is not an appropriate balance between the two as there is not equal and proportionate rights given to both parties, resulting in excessive protection being given to the defendant. This imbalance is best described by discussing the powers of the state in contrast to the defendant’s rights pre-trial and during trial.

The 5th amendment is another amendment us law enforcement officers should know well. The 5th amendment states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The 5th amendment gives citizens’ rights by giving them guaranteed rights to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy and also protects citizens against self-incrimination. Probably the most important thing for law enforcement officer is the self-incrimination part. When an arrest is made and the suspect is in custody. When the police take the suspect into custody and start interrogating him that is when the officer has to read him the Miranda warning. This will what I will have to take most out of this amendment. Also the meaning of double jeopardy is for preventing someone to be charged with the same or similar crime. Meaning nobody can be tried twice for the same charge. Backing up a little bit, the 5th amendment was first adopted and made an amendment on December 15, 1791 when James Madison first proposed it to the House Of Representatives.

In the United State we have many systems, like all others, it is separated the use of some irrelevant or untrustworthy evidence. The system that I am referring to and the one that we will be discussing in this paper is the exclusionary rule. It is the introduction of a good evidence, that it is obtained by a bad law enforcement, is most common in the United State than other countries legal system. To put it in other words, the exclusionary rule is controversial. Therefore, many experts say that it sets criminals free on minor points. In this paper, I will speak about the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule, how it is effecting the criminal justice system of the United State. In addition, I will speak and summarize the case of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott from 1998, this will be a great example of the exclusionary rule and the effects about them. Furthermore, I will show how this case was important with the Exclusionary Rule, and my opinion on the matter.

Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted. The double jeopardy clause, which is in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, was designed to protect an individual from being subject to trials and possible convictions more then once for an alleged offense. The idea was not to give the State too much over the individual, this way no individual will be subject to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal against being tried for an alleged offense more then once. It also reduces the possibility of someone innocent being found guilty. The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment embodies three protections to criminal

This report will analyse the role, principles and responsibilities of the Investigators in the McLeod-Lindsay case, it will describe how the legal boundaries and operational requirements were applied and detailing the legal procedures that were applied. Also including evidence and factors that brought about the pardon and the problems that the case highlights for the adversary system and its use of evidence.

or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime.

The criminal justice system in the United States has traditionally operated under two fundamentally different theories. One theory is the Crime Control Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that criminals should be aggressively pursued and crimes aggressively punished. The other theory is the Due Process Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that the rights of the accused need to be carefully protected in any criminal justice investigation. (Levy, 1999)

Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,

Amendment V guarantees that a person cannot be forced to or be put into the position to incriminate himself, makes it so that a person cannot be tried twice for the same case, or if anything is taken from a person, it is not without “just compensation.” The Fifth Amendment gives people the right to remain silent, as to not accidentally incriminate themselves. It is only fair that the defendant is allowed to say however much, or little he or she wants. The Fifth Amendment also protects people who have been found innocent, and if new evidence surfaces after the trial that would incriminate the defendant, the double jeopardy rule, which says “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” makes it so that they cannot be brought back to trial. Finally the Fifth Amendment compensates people who have had personal property taken or destroyed by the government. The rights given to a citizen of the United States by the Fifth Amendment are only fair, and they are still important to this day.

The Supreme Court case, R v Vollmer[8], states that the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto partner – where evidence as to the deceased’s past violent history in a previous relationship was available at the time of trial but not relied on by defence counsel – where there was no evidence led at trial or on appeal of a history of violence between the appellant and the deceased – where the appellant sought to rely on the defences of self-defence and provocation at trial under sections 271(2), 304 and 668E(1)[9]. Where the cases R v Hajistassi[10], R v Mogg[11] and Re Knowles[12] were applied as precedent to the final decision of the case.

As a part of this relationship individuals gave up some of their liberties in the interest of the common good, with the purpose of the law being to ensure that these common interests were met. For Beccaria, this meant that the law should be limited and written down so that people could make decisions on how to behave. More importantly, punishment was to fit the crime not the individual and was to be certain and swift (Williams & McShane, 2010). Offenders were to be seen as reasonable people with the same capacity for resisting offending behavior as non-offenders. The guiding principle of the criminal justice process was the presumption of innocence; and in this general framework punishment was to be seen as a deterrent to criminal behavior. The central concern of the law and the criminal justice process was therefore the prevention of crime through this deterrent function.