The Double Jeopardy Clause in theFifth Amendment to the US Constitutionprohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. The relevant part of the Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . . "
Scope of the Double Jeopardy Rule
Not everysanctionqualifies under the Double Jeopardy rule. Typically, only sanctions which can be considered as "punishment" would qualify under the rule.
Incorporation
As with all Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Double Jeopardy Clause originally applied only to the federal government. However, through theincorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court has incorporated certainamendmentsandclausesagainst the states. InBenton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), the Supreme Court incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause against the states.
Civil Sanctions
InUnited Statesv. One Assortment of 89 Firearms,465 U.S. 354 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the prohibition on double jeopardy extends to civil sanctions which are applied in a manner that ispunitivein nature.
InUnited States v. Halper,490 U.S.435 (1989), a civil sanction made under theFalse Claims Actqualifies as punishment if the sanction is overwhelmingly disproportionate in compensating the government for its loss, and if the disproportionate award can be explained only as a deterrent or as having a retributive purpose.
InOne Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232 (1972), the Supreme Court held, "Congress may impose both a criminal and acivilsanction in respect to the sameactoromission, for the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punishcriminally, for the same offense."
Charged as a Juvenile for a Crime
InBreed v. Jones, 421 U.S.519 (1975), the Supreme Court found that double jeopardy applies to an individual who is tried as ajuvenileand is then later tried as an adult. This is because juvenile courts have the option to try aminoras anadult. If that court tries the individual as a juvenile, then anothertrial courtmay not try that same individual as an adult for the same crime, as doing so would violate the double jeopardy rule.
Civil Asset Forfeiture
InUnited States v.Ursery, 518 US 267 (1996), the Supreme Court held thatcivil property forfeituresdid not constitute a "punishment" for purposes of the double jeopardy clause. The civil property forfeiture is a remedial civil sanction, andnot a punitive criminal "punishment."
See e.g., Currier v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 2144, 201 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2018)
For more on double jeopardy, see thisCornell Law Review article andthis Yale School Legal Scholarship Repository article.
[Last updated in September of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]
