Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (73938)	9/4/2003 11:36:02 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Even convictions do not result in double jeopardy if they are vacated. I don't do that much criminal law but have had one conviction reversed and remanded, and the guy was given the choice of a new trial or pleading guilty to time served, which is what he went for. But if there is no reversal, and the first conviction stnads, then the issue with respect to a second conviction is whether there was any element of the first crime which was necessary to prove the second crime, so that there are multiple punishments for the same offense, e.g., simultaneous convictions for both simple rape and aggravated rape for the same act of rape. " Citing United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989), Brame points out that "the Double Jeopardy Clause `protects against three distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense.'" Brame v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 122, 126, 476 S.E.2d 177, ___ (1996)