What can happen to someone who is acquitted of a crime, then confesses to it?

[CraigD]

Unless you’ve taken a sabbatical from US news, you’re likely aware that former professional American football player and acquitted murder suspect O.J. Simpson has written a soon-to-be-published book titled “If I Did It”, in which it’s rumored he describes how he actually committed the murders of which he was aquitted.

 

This raises an interesting legal question – under US law, what can happen, legally, to someone who is acquitted of a crime, then confesses to it?

 

According the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, no person can “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” – the well known prohibition against “double-jeopardy”. However it occurs to me that such a person can be tried for the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice for their role in their acquittal, despite such a trial flying in the face of the unwritten principle that one may vigorously defend oneself in court. However, to the best of my knowledge, O.J.Simpson never testified in his trial. Can a person acquitted of a crime to which they later confess, who does not testify in their trial, be held to answer for either of these crimes?

[InfiniteNow]

I am, actually, on sabbatical from US news, however, I think yes. The acquittal was a decision based on the evidence available at the time. When new evidence comes to light, the case should be re-opened. I would think...

 

Interesting question, Craig. Lawyers would likely claim it to be a fictional account anyway, and not admissible...

 

 

If the book has no cover, he can't answer for the murder of his lover. [/Jonny Cochran]

[moo]

Well... I'm no lawyer, but methinks the "double jeopardy" rule should apply on the issue of being charged with the original crime(s) again, otherwise the very concept of its protection becomes a moot point. Sort of a "leak in the dike" scenario if it's allowed once.

 

I have no problem with an obsruction of justice charge if he's dumb enough to confess though, but the confession would likely have to be under oath in order to be considered valid. And I just don't think he's that dumb. ;)

 

moo

[pgrmdave]

If new evidence comes to light, I believe that it is possible to put somebody back on trial, but I'm not certain of what has to happen for that to be possible. It is a dangerous line to walk - on the one hand, if we have substantial new evidence that could put a guilty, dangerous person behind bars then we should be able to do so. On the other hand, we have to be careful that people are not simply put on trial for every tiny shread of evidence until a guilty verdict is found.

[Bobo]

Since he was found responsible for their deaths in a civil suit, shouldn't all procedes of the book sales go to the victims? The "Son of Sam" law won't allow book deals, etc. to proffit the criminal. This I know applies in criminal court, but could it be extrapolated into the civil arena where an individual has been found financially responsible for their wrongful death?

[Zythryn]

No, he could not be tried in a criminal court for the same crime. He could swear in a court of law that he did it, and still couldn't be tried again.

However, I am not sure about obstruction charges as mentioned above.

[cwes99_03]

Of course, the intention of the original law was to prevent the prosecution from repeated attempts to get a guilty verdict with different jurrors. This happened when someone in power tried to use that power to get their way instead of to get justice. However, the loophole effect works for many others. What prosecutors generally do is look for anything else to get the criminal on. Cops will stake them out and ticket them for every possible offense in the book, until harrassment complaints are raised.

 

This is just the stuff of nighttime drama, it really happens regularly.

[Boerseun]

Interesting question...

 

But here's another:

 

If he, in the original trial, used his right to remain silent, and he's acquitted, and subsequentally confess to it, would it be perjury? He didn't 'lie' under oath, he simply remained silent. That he wasn't found guilty, simply points to a lack of evidence tying him to the deed. So I can't really see perjury featuring there.

 

Ponderous, though. I'll do a bit of reseach and come back.

[Freddy]

Interesting question...

 

But here's another:

 

If he, in the original trial, used his right to remain silent, and he's acquitted, and subsequentally confess to it, would it be perjury? He didn't 'lie' under oath, he simply remained silent. That he wasn't found guilty, simply points to a lack of evidence tying him to the deed. So I can't really see perjury featuring there.

 

Ponderous, though. I'll do a bit of reseach and come back.

To perjur oneself a person would have to swear or afirm an oath to tell the truth or a person would have to sign a document under the penalty of perjury for a crime to have been commited. Since the defendent in question did neither of these things no law was broken hence no perjury.

[cwes99_03]

Okay, along the line of reasoning on perjury I think you are both right. It would be neat however if one could argue perjury based on the not guilty plea.

 

As far as double jeopardy goes, though, in keeping with what I have been taught was the original intent of the law, for one to declare one's own guilt aftward would not have protected him from legal punishment. The problem is that it was not enumerated into the law as such. It was purposefully left vague so the prosecution could not invent new reasons for trying a person over and over.

 

The problem with the law is obviously that it does not allow for new evidence to allow for a new trial. Why not? Again manufacturing of evidence would allow a prosecutor to try a person, fail, learn from the mistakes of the first trial, manufacture evidence and try again, seemingly endlessly.

 

Thus the appeals process. One might on appeal fight a bench decision to allow or bar evidence based on the evidence at the time. However, later evidence may make it evident that the first evidence should have been allowed. Is the prosecutor not allowed to appeal citing that the evidence available at the time should have been allowed (even though the reasons for not allowing it at that time were reasonable)?

 

There are an endless number of questions here, I think.

[C1ay]

This raises an interesting legal question – under US law, what can happen, legally, to someone who is acquitted of a crime, then confesses to it?

Nothing. By the 5th Amendment, you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. It's possible that it could open doors for other crimes like perjury but he cannot be tried again for the murder of his wife or Ron Goldman.