Talk:Double Jeopardy (1999 film)

message: I think that the above discussion essentially "misses the point".  The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy means, in brief, that the government cannot try a person twice for the same offense.  In this film, the first murder was committed in the State of Washington.  Therefore, the government of the State of Washington cannot try Ashley Judd twice for the same offense.  However, this says nothing about the government of the State of Louisiana.  The second murder was committed in Louisiana.  Therefore, the government of the State of Louisiana is free to try Ashley Judd for murder; that is, the government of the State of Louisiana is not barred by the provisions of double jeopardy.  The government of the State of Louisiana never put Ashley Judd in jeopardy the first time (for the first murder); therefore, the government of the State of Louisiana never has to worry about double jeopardy for the second murder, since that government never put her in jeopardy to begin with.  If anything, only the State of Washington would be prohibited from pursuing a second conviction.  The workings of the government of the State of Washington in no way impede the workings of the government of the State of Louisiana.  They are two entirely different jurisdictions.  There is also a second point, which was briefly stated above.  Whether the legal arguments are valid or invalid does not really matter.  The characters in the movie have made some assertions about the law.  It is entirely feasible that these characters were mistaken in their statements and beliefs construing the double jeopardy concept.  So, even if the concept of double jeopardy as described in the film may be totally inaccurate, the characters in the film (erroneously) believed them to be accurate.  Thus, the events unfolded in the film according to the (mistaken and erroneous) beliefs of these characters.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What WE think is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not allow original research (WP:OR), and needs to only use reliable sources (WP:RS). Whether Dershowitz is right or wrong does not matter - unless there is a reliable source claiming otherwise, his should be the only critique in the article. Therefore, I intend to remove everything except Dershowitz' commentary from the "Legal accuracy" section. Adpete (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more solid legal argument 

message: Although Nicholas does have another assumed name in the plot line prior to making up his identity as Deveraux, since nowhere in the article is this mentioned it seems wrong to then state that this is some sort of "subsequent" assumed name.  75.252.174.236 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two assumed names 

message: Pronoun antecedent agreement is incorrect. Example: When someone (singular) ….they (plural) …
This is an error in agreement. 66.68.222.197 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Why is there no mention of the filming location or details like that? Even who wrote the screenplay for this film is missing. Would be nice to fill in certain background details like this that are usually on movie pages. Bdavid1111 (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming location?