Opinion ID: 1664829
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Scope of Double Jeopardy Clause

Text: [1,2] The Double Jeopardy Clauses of both the federal and the Nebraska Constitutions protect a defendant against a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction. [6] Stated another way, [a] State may not put a defendant in jeopardy twice for the same offense. [7] In Arizona v. Washington [8] the U.S. Supreme Court explained why the declaration of a mistrial in a criminal prosecution may trigger the constitutional protection afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause: Because jeopardy attaches before the judgment becomes final, the constitutional protection also embraces the defendant's valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal. The reasons why this valued right merits constitutional protection are worthy of repetition. Even if the first trial is not completed, a second prosecution may be grossly unfair. It increases the financial and emotional burden on the accused, prolongs the period in which he is stigmatized by an unresolved accusation of wrongdoing, and may even enhance the risk that an innocent defendant may be convicted. The danger of such unfairness to the defendant exists whenever a trial is aborted before it is completed. Consequently, as a general rule, the prosecutor is entitled to one, and only one, opportunity to require an accused to stand trial. [9] [3-5] In a case tried to a jury, jeopardy attaches when the jury is impaneled and sworn. [10] However, a mistrial does not automatically terminate jeopardy, because 'a trial can be discontinued when particular circumstances manifest a necessity for doing so, and when failure to discontinue would defeat the ends of justice.' [11] Double jeopardy does not arise if the State can demonstrate manifest necessity for a mistrial declared over the objection of the defendant. [12]