Teamwork Unit 6

Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Protections CCL 2134-9

Instructor: Timothy R. Walsh

Everest University

Group C: Team C
Timothy Moseley (Team Leader)
Brandi Hendricks
Victor Munoz
Amanda Mroz

2 July 2009

Decide if Double Jeopardy, and Collateral Estoppel, applies in any of the four situations and explain why or why not.
Double jeopardy is defined as “a provision of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution that has been construed to prohibit an individual from being tried twice for the same crime prosecuted by the same sovereign jurisdiction unless the defendant waives the constitutional protection by appealing a conviction or otherwise” (Town, 2004, p. 584).
Collateral Estoppel is defined as “where a fact necessary to the prosecution of a second but different case against the defendant has been clearly found in the defendant’s favor at the first trial, the defendant cannot be forced to relitigate the same fact a second time at a second trial involving the same sovereign” (Town, 2004, p. 583).
1) Where defendant fled by vehicle from California into Arizona, and both states tried defendant for drunk driving.
“Double Jeopardy applies in this situation. The defendant is being charged with the same crime twice” (Hendricks, 2009).
“This would be Double Jeopardy because he has been charged with the same crime twice” (Munoz, 2009).
“The defendant broke the law in to different states so I don’t think that is would be a double jeopardy crime laws are different in different states the defendants alcohol levels could have been different so that defendant can be charged with a higher crime” (Mroz, 2009).
“Double jeopardy cannot be claimed in this case. This is what would fall under the dual sovereignty doctrine. The offender has committed two separate offenses in two separate states against state governments. Each state can prosecute the offender on the same charge” (Moseley, 2009).
2) Where a state tries a defendant for armed robbery after acquittal in federal court.
“Collateral Estoppel applies to this situation. The defendant is being brought back for the same fact but in a different court” (Hendricks, 2009).
“I believe that Collateral Estoppel applies to this situation because the ruling was in the defendant's favor in the first trial and he is now being forced to relitigate the same fact a second time” (Munoz, 2009).
“The defendant was already acquitted in federal court; the defendant was already in jeopardy and can not be placed in jeopardy again” (Mroz, 2009).
“In this case, the defendant cannot be tried again for the same crime if both courts are in the same state. The accused has already been acquitted of the crime in federal court and is protected by double jeopardy. He cannot be tried for this crime again” (Moseley, 2009)
3) Where a defendant is tried and acquitted of murder, then tried in the same court for attempted murder.
“Neither Double Jeopardy nor Collateral Estoppel applies to this situation. The defendant is being charged for another crime” (Hendricks, 2009).
“I don't think any of the two apply in this case” (Munoz, 2009).
“The defendant was acquitted of murder, not for attempted of murder. A court may find new evidence that can prove that the defendant attempted to kill and try the defendant on that crime” (Mroz, 2009)
“I do not believe that the defendant can be tried again on this offense. He is protected by double jeopardy. The prosecution could not get a conviction in court so they tried to try the defendant on a lesser charge of the same crime” (Moseley, 2009).
4) After a grand jury hears evidence and fails to indict, and then the charges are brought again to a grand jury, which indicts, and the defendant is then tried.
“Double Jeopardy applies to this situation. The defendant is being tried twice for the same charge” (Hendricks, 2009).
“I don't think any of the two apply in this case” (Munoz, 2009)
“This person was not in jeopardy. So the courts can try the defendant in the court” (Mroz, 2009). “Neither double jeopardy nor collateral estoppel applies because new evidence may have been introduced. Also, the defendant was never acquitted, which needs to occur in order for protection by double jeopardy to be allowed” (Moseley, 2009).

Reference:
Town, L. W. (Ed.). (2004). Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Protections (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.