Double jeopardy and its related concepts constitute one of the more complicated areas in criminal law and the literature exploring the particular aspects of this area is vast.
Claims raising double jeopardy and corresponding issues may be based on one or more sources of law: the federal constitutional double jeopardy clause, Pennsylvania's constitutional double jeopardy clause, Pennsylvania statutory law, especially section 109-111 of the Crimes Code, and other related rules as developed in court decisions or promulgated in the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. The recurring issues include: 1) the reach of the federal and Pennsylvania double jeopardy cluses, e.g., what constitutes "a second prosecution" or "multiple punishments" for "the same offense;" 2) the federal constitutional doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion; 3) the compulsory joinder rule codified in the Pennsylvania Crimes Code and expanded by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and 4) the state and federal decisions construing these.
In analyzing potential issues in this area, Bucks County criminal lawyers should consider which law(s) a claim might be based and whether more than one constitutional (state or federal) and/or statutory claim is available. The facts of the case will need to be carefully evaluated and measured against the varying requirements for the different claims. For example, a claim based on federal double jeopardy protections only covers cases dealing with the "same offense" as defined in federal law. If the claim is based on state constitutional law, the double jeopardy clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution has generally been interpreted as at least coextensive with its federal counterpart, but an issue may arise which provides counsel with the opportunity to argue that Pennsylvania's double jeopardy clause should provide even greater protections than the federal clause. Furthermore, as often happens, even though a case may afford no constitutional double jeopardy arguments, statutory relief or procedural rules may be available.
At the outset, Bucks county counsel should be aware that various court interpretations of state and federal double jeopardy and related protections are not always clear or consistent. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Legislature do not always agree on what the law is or should be.