Double jeopardy bars a second prosecution for the same crime after an acquittal or a conviction by the same government. The rule comes from the Fifth Amendment and reaches every state court as well as federal court, following Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969). It does not stop all repeat prosecution. In Gamble v. United States, decided June 17, 2019, the Supreme Court kept the dual-sovereignty rule, which lets state and federal prosecutors charge the same act, by a vote of 7 to 2.
The edges of the protection decide real cases. How a first case ends shapes what can follow, and what a plea bargain trades away before trial explains the choice that resolves most federal cases before a jury ever sits.
This guide to the rule and its exceptions leans on the constitutional text, high court records and federal procedure. The Justice section collects those explainers in one place.
What is double jeopardy and when does it apply?
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects against being prosecuted twice for the same crime. As the Legal Information Institute explains, the rule applies to both federal and state governments through the incorporation doctrine, following Benton v. Maryland in 1969. The protection covers criminal punishment rather than every government sanction. It blocks a second attempt to convict after the first effort ends in acquittal, and it blocks a new round of prosecution after a conviction has been entered.
When can a second prosecution still happen?
The largest opening is the dual-sovereignty doctrine. An offence is defined by a law, and each law belongs to a sovereign, so state and federal charges over one act count as different offences. In Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646, the Court wrote that the doctrine "is not an exception to the double jeopardy right but follows from the Fifth Amendment's text." Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch each filed dissents.
Does the rule cover civil cases?
Civil matters mostly sit outside the clause. The protection reaches criminal punishment, and it extends to civil sanctions only when they are punitive in nature. In United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984), the Supreme Court applied that standard to a civil weapons forfeiture. In United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996), the Court treated civil asset forfeiture as remedial, which kept it outside double jeopardy. The clause also follows a person across court systems: in Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975), it barred an adult trial after a juvenile court had already handled the same offense. This connects to our earlier piece, Juvenile life without parole: shrinking, but still on the books in half the states.
What happens after a hung jury?
A jury that cannot agree does not end a case the way an acquittal does. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31 covers the outcome. The verdict in a federal criminal trial must be unanimous, and the rule lets a jury return a partial verdict on any count or defendant about which it has agreed. If the jury cannot agree on one or more counts, the court may declare a mistrial on those counts. Rule 31(b)(3) then allows the government to retry the defendant on any count the jury could not decide.
Conclusion: where the shield stops
Double jeopardy gives a person charged with a crime one full attempt by each government, not an endless shield. An acquittal or conviction closes the file for that sovereign. A separate sovereign may still file charges over the same act, as Gamble confirmed in 2019 over two sharp dissents. Civil sanctions stay outside the clause unless they operate as punishment, and a hung jury leaves the door open to a second trial under Rule 31. The protection is firm inside those lines and silent past them. For related coverage, see How federal compassionate release works, and what the Supreme Court just narrowed.
