Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent of a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member was bribed
to influence the verdict? Does it make any difference if the defendant knew about the tampering?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/3/2022 6:37 AM, Rick wrote:

Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent of
a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member was
bribed to influence the verdict?  Does it make any difference if the defendant knew about the tampering?

AFAIK double jeopardy may apply if the defendant had no knowledge of the tampering.

An Internet search showed a case where the defendant did the
bribing/tampering and was retried.

My somewhat faulty memory remembered a "Law and Order" TV show where the defendant was found not-guilty but the mother bribed the judge. In the
end, the son pleads to the murder if the mother doesn't get charged.
The judge commits suicide

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/LawAndOrderS6E4Jeopardy

This is probably a good law school case.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found
innocent of a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a
jury member was bribed to influence the verdict? Does it make any
difference if the defendant knew about the tampering?

The general rule is that, if a trial was "fixed," the defendant was not
in jeopardy during that trial. So a second trial wouldn't be double
jeopardy because there was no first jeopardy.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/3/2022 7:00 AM, Roy wrote:

On 6/3/2022 6:37 AM, Rick wrote:

Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent
of a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member
was bribed to influence the verdict?  Does it make any difference if
the defendant knew about the tampering?

AFAIK double jeopardy may apply if the defendant had no knowledge of the tampering.

An Internet search showed a case where the defendant did the bribing/tampering and was retried.

My somewhat faulty memory remembered a "Law and Order" TV show where the defendant was found not-guilty but the mother bribed the judge. In the
end, the son pleads to the murder if the mother doesn't get charged. The judge commits suicide

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/LawAndOrderS6E4Jeopardy

This is probably a good law school case.

Yeah, sounds like fun for moot court.



--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/3/2022 6:37 AM, Rick wrote:

Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent of
a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member was
bribed to influence the verdict?  Does it make any difference if the defendant knew about the tampering?

The only decision I'm aware of was one where the defendant had bribed
the judge. A higher court ruled that the defendant had nto been in
jeopardy and the therefore could be tried again.

I suspect the same would apply to bribing the entire jury. I'm not sure
what an appellate court would decide if only one jury member was bribed.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:t7evl8$pmt$1@dont-email.me...

On 6/3/2022 6:37 AM, Rick wrote:

Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent of
a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member was
bribed to influence the verdict? Does it make any difference if the
defendant knew about the tampering?

The only decision I'm aware of was one where the defendant had bribed the >judge. A higher court ruled that the defendant had nto been in jeopardy and >the therefore could be tried again.

I suspect the same would apply to bribing the entire jury. I'm not sure
what an appellate court would decide if only one jury member was bribed.

Would it really matter if just one juror is bribed? I'd envision a case
where you have a jury voting 11 to 1 for acquittal, but you have one juror holding out who votes guilty. In the absence of tampering, you'd likely
have a mistrial and possibly a new trial with new evidence, etc. and maybe even a conviction. So bribing the one holdout juror to go along with the
not guilty could be significant.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

Roy wrote:

Rick wrote:

Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found
innocent of a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or
a jury member was bribed to influence the verdict?  Does it
make any difference if the defendant knew about the tampering?

AFAIK double jeopardy may apply if the defendant had no knowledge
of the tampering.

An Internet search showed a case where the defendant did the
bribing/tampering and was retried.

My somewhat faulty memory remembered a "Law and Order" TV show
where the defendant was found not-guilty but the mother bribed
the judge. In the end, the son pleads to the murder if the mother
doesn't get charged. The judge commits suicide

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/LawAndOrderS6E4Jeopar
dy

This is probably a good law school case.

Yeah, sounds like fun for moot court.

Right. TV shows are often cited in moot (and even trial) court
briefs.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

Would it really matter if just one juror is bribed? I'd envision
a case where you have a jury voting 11 to 1 for acquittal, but you
have one juror holding out who votes guilty. In the absence of
tampering, you'd likely have a mistrial and possibly a new trial
with new evidence, etc. and maybe even a conviction. So bribing
the one holdout juror to go along with the not guilty could be
significant.

One hold-out juror wouldn't create a double jeopardy issue. But a
bribed juror who convinces other jurors who may not have otherwise
voted the way they did, does implicate double jeopardy.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 3 Jun 2022 07:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

On 6/3/2022 6:37 AM, Rick wrote:

Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent of
a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member was
bribed to influence the verdict?  Does it make any difference if the
defendant knew about the tampering?

I just read your Law & Order plot descriptino below. It's amazing how interesting it can be. (Of course I had watched this episode so that
helped to make the text alive.) I had assumed Sorkin was an old man
with lots of experience. He was a rather young man. How was he able to
write such complicated plots with so much police work and law, even if
he got some of it wrong (and even that might have been wrong just to
make the tv show better)?

AFAIK double jeopardy may apply if the defendant had no knowledge of the >tampering.

That's what the episode says at the end.

An Internet search showed a case where the defendant did the >bribing/tampering and was retried.

My somewhat faulty memory remembered a "Law and Order" TV show where the >defendant was found not-guilty but the mother bribed the judge. In the
end, the son pleads to the murder if the mother doesn't get charged.
The judge commits suicide

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/LawAndOrderS6E4Jeopardy

This is probably a good law school case.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)