DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register) [LWN.net]

DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register)

Posted Dec 2, 2003 15:50 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66)
Parent article: DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register)

I guess Norway doesn't have a double-jeapordy law?

(Of course, the USA has lots of ways to get around that too; even if acquitted in criminal court, you can still be sued into oblivion in civil court.)

-Rob

(Log in to post comments)

DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register)

Posted Dec 2, 2003 16:03 UTC (Tue) by sethg (guest, #14970) [Link]

In the US, a defendant who is found guilty of a crime can appeal to a higher court, but a verdict of not-guilty cannot be appealed. (As you say, the government can try to nail the defendant again with a civil trial.) Judging from the Register article, Norwegian defendants do not have the same protection.

It's not clear from the article how big a deal this is. The prosecutors could just be going through the motions of an appeal that has no chance of succeeding, just so they can tell the MPAA "see, we did everything we could".

DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register)

Posted Dec 2, 2003 17:31 UTC (Tue) by jack_walker (guest, #17402) [Link]

In the US, the government can never be a plaintiff in a _civil_ trial. In recent prominent cases in the US, private individuals have brought suit against acquitted defendants but neither the US or state governments have participated in any other capacity than providing the court system in which the civil trials took place.

Double jeopardy only applies in criminal trials and does not prevent a private entity from bringing suit against a plaintiff. The principle of double jeopardy is specifically designed to limit the power of the government to persecute individuals.

Jack

Government can sue someone civilly

Posted Dec 5, 2003 17:47 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

In the US, the government can never be a plaintiff in a _civil_ trial.

Yes it can. There are various statutes that specifically declare certain activity to be damaging, but not criminal, and designate a certain government official as having standing to sue people on the public's behalf to recover the damages.

This is a fairly recent adjustment to US legal system and is IMO a huge slide away from traditional Constitutional values. But it's there.

And of course it's always been possible for the government to sue a person for traditional damages, such as where the person vandalizes a bridge and the government makes him pay to repair it.

That was taken a little too far by the city of Gilroy, California, some years ago which IIRC passed an ordinance saying that drunk drivers were civilly responsible for the costs of arresting and trying them. Because it was civil liability, the city had a lower standard of proof that the person really drove drunk than for criminal penalties. So you could be acquitted of the crime of drunk driving, but if a court still found it was more likely than not that you were driving drunk, you'd have to pay thousands to reimburse the city for arresting you.

I always expected that to fail a 14th amendment (criminal due process) test, but I never heard.

DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register)

Posted Dec 2, 2003 18:19 UTC (Tue) by docolczyk (guest, #14874) [Link]

>In the US, a defendant who is found guilty of a crime can appeal to a >higher court, but a verdict of not-guilty cannot be appealed. (As you >say, the government can try to nail the defendant again with a civil >trial.) Judging from the Register article, Norwegian defendants do not >have the same protection.

Before submitting comments, it helps that you actually *know* what you
are talking about.

In the US criminal system, the principle factor for retrials is not trials or verdicts, but jeopardy. You cannot be put in jeopardy twice. This is
usually the case when the judge dismisses a case "with prejudice", usually
this happens after a verdict or when a judge dismisses a case for a failing
of the prosecutio. The judge usually does this after a jury is sworn in but not before.

This means that you can indeed be retried after a not guilty verdict.
Typically this happens in cases where a judge was bribed, a jury member
was bribed or threatened or awitness was tampered with. This is because
the defendant, having rigged the trial was never in jeopardy. ( Thus the
name. )

Even in cases where the judge does everything right and there is no defense
misconduct, jeopardy might nopt be attached. Take the case of Lisa Michelle
Lambert, who was found guilty, then let go on appeal. Only to be imprisoned
again, after an appeals court found that the appeal was inappropriate. (
The Federal case was heard before all local appeals were exhausted. )

DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register)

Posted Dec 2, 2003 20:06 UTC (Tue) by rickfdd (guest, #4519) [Link]

Yes, in theory, but weren't the Los Angeles policeman who beat Rodney King and found not guilty in state court, retried for a different federal offense (violation of civil rights) for essentially the same beating.

DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register)

Posted Dec 2, 2003 16:04 UTC (Tue) by guan (subscriber, #13326) [Link]

There's no specific double-jeopardy law in the legal tradition of most Nordic countries.
I believe the term "retrial" is misleading however. Here points of fact are being appealed.
That is not usually possible in US law. A "real retrial" takes place in the court of first
instance.