A man allegedly robbed a federally insured bank in the state of Illinois. Eyewitnesses fail to make a positive and unmistakable identification of the defendant at his federal criminal trial. The jury acquitted the defendant for federal robbery
On these facts
A) The defendant cannot be tried again for this particular robbery by the federal government.
B) Once a person has been acquitted of a crime, there cannot be a second trial, because a jury had determined that the defendant was innocent.
C) The state of Illinois can properly indict, try, and convict defendant for state bank robbery of the very same bank that he was acquitted of robbery under federal law without violating the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.
D) Answers A and C both state correct responses.
E) The defendant cannot be tried by the State of Illinois because the defendant has the right not to be tried twice for the same crime under the Fifth Amendment.
D
You might also like to view...
Which aspect of incarceration is supposed to punish the offender?
a. time away b. deprivation of rights c. the prison environment d. the prison subculture
In _________, the Supreme Court barred capital punishment for child rapists unless the rape resulted in or was intended to result in the death of the child
A) ?Peterson v. California B) ?Kennedy v. Louisiana C) ?Fogel v. Georgia D) ?Sambuco v. Texas E) ?Gregg v. Georgia.
What are the key issues surrounding the importance of interpretation of higher-court decisions?
What will be an ideal response?
Which two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court laid the foundation for Miranda v. Arizona (1966)?
a. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) and Massiah v. U. S. (1964) b. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) c. Wolf v. Colorado (1949) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961) d. Wolf v. Colorado (1949) and Rochin v. California (1952)