Talk:Double Jeopardy Clause

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Joriki in topic Manifest necessity


Double Jeopardy (film)

edit

The section regarding this film is not well-verified. It needs improvements, or it shall be removed. --George Ho (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reworded a few things and added inline citations to external sources. Have another look at it. If you still have concerns, please be specific in listing your concerns. Arcturis (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hopefully, it is better. Hopefully, the section follows exactly what the sources say. And original analyses are omitted, thankfully, unless I'm proven wrong. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
This whole section should be put into the movie article with just a "See Also..." at the end. There are lots of fictional movies including the double jeopardy law. There are lots of movies with legal mistakes in them - there's a website dedicated to movie mistakes, they aren't important to the actual law. 91.125.105.194 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply


edit

"Jeopardy attaches in jury trial ", please translate from legalese into English. 91.125.105.194 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Justification for Non-capital Cases

edit

Need content on why "life or limb" applies to non-capital cases. Six months in jail does not entail life or limb, does it? 98.115.35.76 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Manifest necessity

edit

The introduction lists manifest necessity as one of three reasons why jeopardy doesn't attach, but the body of the article, despite analyzing various exceptions to the prohibition against double jeopardy in some detail, never mentions this term again. If it's important enough to be mentioned in the introduction, it should be explained in the body. This definition of manifest necessity might help (it mentions double jeopardy). Joriki (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply