Double jeopardy is a defensive procedure that prohibits the defendant from getting tried on similar charges based on lawful conviction or exoneration. In countries with common law, a defendant has to go through with a peremptory plea. This means that the defendant is found guilty and acquitted of a similar offense. If the defendant has raised an issue on double jeopardy, he will have to present clear evidence before the court to clarify his claims.
This usually becomes a preliminary matter before the court since it rules whether the defendant’s plea is indeed substantial or not and if so he will not be projected through trial hence the proceedings will not take place. In countries like Canada, the United States and Mexico, it is a constitutional right to put someone twice in jeopardy (Hoffman 1994). However, in other countries, statute law offers protection to the citizens against being jeopardized twice.
According to the Fifth Amendment on United States Constitution, “No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb (Broadbridge 2002).” This, therefore, means that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents United States federal governments and the state itself from putting a person on trial for a similar crime twice or more. This, therefore, means that they cannot impose more than one punishment on a person for a single crime.
This, therefore, means that Armington is protected by the constitution from being punished twice on single crime he committed. Armington is indeed right when he contended that he could not be tried again for the same crime he had committed as that would constitute to double jeopardy which is indeed prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Initially after robbing a drugstore, shot and seriously injured Jennings, a drugstore clerk, Armington was convicted in a criminal trial of armed robbery, assault and battery. This means that he had already been tried and charged for crime he committed.
Jennings civil tort suit against Armington for damages will be considered as double jeopardy which is not accepted by the constitution. Armington should not be convicted or tried double as that will mean that the country will be exercising double jeopardy on him which is wrong. This therefore means that if Jennings proceedings do not place Armington on double jeopardy, then the other proceedings that may later on incur against him will not succeed.
It is therefore important for the state to protect Armington against double jeopardy; he actually should not be tried twice for one offence which he had already been charged. According to the Fifth Amendment, a person can get protection from the state against being tried twice if the proceedings threaten the life of the person.
According to U.S. Supreme Court, a person can be prosecuted more than once for one crime he has committed when each of the crimes committed require evidence which is not similar to the other offences. The courts will be expected to examine any traces of each offence that the offender has been accused of without regarding to the initial evidence that had been introduced in the court during the trial.
However, if the offences subsume one another, this will lessen the offense hence classifying them as one offence. This therefore means that punishment will only be done ones and in case the offender is tried again, it will be considered as double jeopardy. This is why Armington is right to claim that Jennings accusations will result in double jeopardy.
References
Broadbridge, S. (2002). The Criminal Justice Bill: Double jeopardy. Prentice: Prentice Hall Publishers.
Hoffman, P. (1994). Double Jeopardy Wars: The Case for a Civil Rights Exception. New York: Free Press.