the what?
I think he means that you can't try a person twice for the same crime....
yea, double jeopardy....even right after they announced "not guilty" he coulda gone out in the street and screamed that he'd gotten away with it...it wouldnt matter. at least they found him guilty in the civil trial though. (b/c in a criminal case, you have to be found guilty BEYOND a resonable doubt, in civil you have to be found guilty only by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence, which is ALOT less) i find this stuff totally interesting.
yeah i read this story about this kid being tried for the murder and stealing of a convienance store. the lawyer was awesome and the only proof was the kids hat that had been dropped at the scene of the crime. then the lawyer tore all the evidence to shreds and got the hat denounced as evidence and after the trial was over and he was not guilty. the boy turns to the D.A. and asks for his hat back.
wait, do you mean double indemnity? or is that something different?
double jeopardy was a kewl movie with ashley judd and morgan freeman. it's a twist on the legal term. ashley's character was convicted for murder, even though her husband faked the death. when she got out of jail and found out he was still alive, the concept of 'double jeopardy' came up. if she killed him now, could she go to jail again?
no, because the law states (as brought out before) that a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. And I wouldn't know about the movie...It was rated R :)
actually, she could be tried twice, since they are two seperate crimes that occurred at different times.
The whole "convicted of murder, victim not really dead, suspect free to kill said "victim" due to double jeopardy" is an urban legend.
Real double jeopardy is meant to protect suspects who are found innocent. If new evidence comes up, they cannot be tried again. On the other hand, if you are found guilty, you can appeal the judgement.
how would they be two different crimes?
they "occured at two different times" and under different circumstances. it doesn't matter if either one of them "actually" occurred.
think of it this way. If I rob you of $20 today and $20 tomorrow, have I committed two different crimes? Yes. Can I be convicted of robbing you of $20 in two seperate criminal trials? Yes.
Now what if I am falsely convicted of robbing you of $20? Does that mean that I can go and rob you of $20 for real whenever I feel like it without any repercussions? No.
since you have so much extra cash now..can you loan me a dollar?
hahahahhahahhaha, so funny.
nice explanation bro, hit the nail on the head.
i don't know. i'm figuring if you already did the time, you should be allowed to do the crime.
Oooooh... Brian was shot down... hope he can save himself and say he saw it on broadcast TV (edited version) or read what it was about...
why would i need to 'save myself'?
Because you seemed to be saying "Hey, you should be seeing this R-rated movie!" But I know you weren't doing that
c'mon dave, i said nothing of the sort. you're reading too much into my comments.
I can tell you're not like that... it just sounded like it...
what does the movie's rating have to do with 'knowing about the movie'? obvious you DO 'know about the movie' since you know it's rating.
and because i know you're curious, you can see it 10/27/02 9:00p on CBS and 11:35p on ABC.