CH 9 CTA (231)

Question One
No, it does not. The post-arrest probable cause hearing is only to determine if the police officer who made the arrest had reason to do so. The trial is conducted ex parte, meaning in the absence of one party. In this instance, Sam is only freed because the arresting officer had no reason to affect the arrest. However, if enough evidence is gathered proving he committed a crime, then he can be rearrested and tried.
Question Two
Although defendants are protected from double jeopardy by the Fifth Amendment of America’s Constitution, it does not do so in every instance. In the second scenario, a procedural technicality arose as the prosecutor forgot to subpoena the victim of the crime. A mistrial declared for such a reason does not bar the defendant from being tried again. Hence Sam is not protected by double jeopardy from a retrial.
Question Three
If the evidence used to convict Sam was illegally obtained, then Sam cannot be retried. The Fourth Amendment is sacrosanct and should never be violated. If the appellate court reverses the decision based on the fact that the evidence used to convict Sam was obtained illegally, then he will be released and cannot be retried.
Question Four
Sam can be tried for the offense of handling stolen goods, knowing they were stolen. If he was acquitted of burglarizing Von Snobley’s home, then that was the only crime he was accused of by the state. Trying him for a different crime does not constitute double jeopardy. By definition, double jeopardy is being tried twice for the same offense (Griffin, 2010).

This is not the case in the fourth scenario because burglary and handling stolen goods are different offenses. Reference
BIBLIOGRAPHY Griffin, L. (2010). Untangling double jeopardy in mixed-verdict cases. SMU Law Review, 63(1), 1033-1068.