Talk:Double Jeopardy (1999 film)

Spoiler tags and plot details

This page requires SPOILER tags. I have yet to see the film, so another must make judgements on what is to be considered given background information, and what is the true plot.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asasa64 (talk • contribs) 18 December 2006.

Are you sure that it's Travis (the character portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones) who says that Libby (Judd's character) can kill her husband in Times Square without fear of punishment? I'm fairly sure it's a debarred lawyer, who murdered her husband and also was serving her sentence with Libby, who said this. --Qwerty (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it! Here:

Margaret Skolowski: Ever hear of Double Jeopardy? Fifth Amendment to the constitution?

Elizabeth 'Libby' Parsons: No.

Margaret Skolowski: It says no person can be convicted of the same crime twice, the state says you already killed your husband right? So, when you get out of here, you track him down, and you can kill him. You can walk up to him in Times Square put a gun to his head and pull the f**king trigger and there's nothing they can do about it! Kinda makes you feel all warm and tingly inside don't it?

Travis Lehman doesn't mention Times Square at all, so how exactly do we change the comment about Travis advising Libby about double jeopardy? --Qwerty (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (2nd edit: Qwerty (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

By the way, Maria Skolowski is played by Roma Maffia (IMBD profile linked here). --Qwerty (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Happened on this page randomly, never having seen the movie, but I suggest it might need a tiny bit of fixup - the page suddenly says something about 'Lehman' repeating the double jeopardy advice, as though the reader is supposed to know him already, but doesn't reference who he is or (assuming he's the Tommy Lee Jones character) who plays him anywhere on the page. This lead to some seconds of confusion and rereading and searching for some reference, especially since other characters are given more intro. I'd try to fix it myself, but as I said, I've never seen the movie, so I might get it wrong Wandering Ghost 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Plot sections don't carry spoiler tags - they're assumed to reveal the plot. CapnZapp (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Murder someone twice?

How can you murder someone twice? Couldn't the defendant claim that it's impossible to murder someone twice? Something about time served making up for future time? That they didn't kill someone the first time and that their time in prison the first time makes up for the second? soldierx40k (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing here is it wouldn't be a case of 'double jeopardy' but rather an argument that the 2nd 'murder' couldn't have taken place in the legal sense since someone cannot lose their life more than once (at least legally). I don't know if that would fly in court though. It would be very similar to if you were convicted of destruction of property, destroying a valuable painting, when in fact the painting was just hidden away. After being released you then found the painting and then destroyed it for real. Legally, the painting was already qualified as destroyed in your original conviction. It's a complicated question, but in the end I suspect you wouldn't be in the clear (although you probably could sue for wrongful imprisonment or the like for your 1st conviction). Derekloffin (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The legal discussion in the film's dialogue is wrong. The concept of "Double Jeopardy" does not apply to the events depicted. But then, these movie characters were not represented as knowledgeable lawyers, so what's wrong with their remarks being ignorant? Paul (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Italic text== Legal Inaccuracies ==

Removed statement about Louisiana capital punishment; that was just a stressed Devereaux trying to scare the protagonists. We don't know if he believes it; we don't know if he's exaggerating or playing on "old times".

In any case, it can't be compared to the movie-makers making a mistake so fundamental it invalidates the entire premise of the plot. CapnZapp (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Grand51paul and the legal inaccuracies section in that this Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz opinion is not sufficient for this matter. Nor would I claim that the legal argument is right, but if one reads the text of the US 5th amendment, It does not outright state anythings about "facts" concerning the case, only the offence committed. It may not hold water in front of the supreme court or the jury, and it is an exaggeration of the amendment's clause, but it is still a plausible loophole nonetheless (and certainly the law has been twisted out of context more than this fictional scenario). a better interpretation for why a double jeapordy offence would be thrown out would be because the first ruling can be classified as fraudulent, which the Supreme Court has ruled as an exeption. Even though neither the prosecuter nor the defendent were the ones commiting fraud, the victim had commited fraud making the ruling invalid. Pjbeierle (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would in principle agree with Pjbeierle in questioning the so called ‘legal inaccuracies’ of this film. Although for different reasons. Alan Dershowitz has claimed that in real life the double jeopardy defence of the film’s plot would not stand up in court. In this I would agree that ‘in real life’ the defence would not be accepted. Not because it is not valid law, but because in accepting it, the law would seem so ridiculous (a citizen given carte blanche to calmly and methodically hunt down and kill another citizen) that the judge ruling on the case would use all his or her rhetorical skills to bend the law any way feasible so as to claim the defence is not valid.

However in strict law, I think Dershowitz is mistaken in claiming a crime is only a crime if it has an associated set of facts. As mentioned above most crimes do need an associated set of facts to differentiate them from when the perpetrator might repeat later the same crime. However it would be ridiculous to claim that a murderer could not be prosecuted for his crime because the authorities did not know the particulars of it. Suppose a couple go on a six month sailing cruise in the Caribbean visiting a myriad of small and large islands. When the yacht returns only the wife is on board. She casually tells the authorities that they had an argument one day and hubby dived off and swam to a local island which she couldn’t happen to identify. The suspicious police tap her phone and record her admitting murdering her husband but without any particulars. Are we to believe that she could never be prosecuted because the police don’t know the specific facts of how, when or where she did it?

Dershowitz is confusing commonly used practice with actual constitutional law. The fact that most of the time when an accused is being arraigned the offense is described with associated facts does not mean that it absolutely MUST be the case. Please show us in the Constitution where that is laid out. Edward Carson (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed this is even up for debate. The interpretation of the law presented in the movie is unequivocally wrong. The Double Jeopardy rule, as phrased in the Constitution, refers to being tried twice for the "same offense". If you kill a person on July 5, 2005, and then kill the same person again on July 5, 2011—regardless of whatever screwy chain of events allowed something so seemingly illogical to happen, and regardless of your various options for redress of the harm caused by the wrongful conviction—you've committed two different crimes. Under what basis in law or logic are two distinct murders six years apart the "same offense"?

Your argument that "Dershowitz is mistaken in claiming a crime is only a crime if it has an associated set of facts" misses the point. (It also appears to be in reference to the Straight Dope article, which has no mention of Dershowitz.) The article's claim that "a crime, for double jeopardy purposes, consists of a specific set of facts" refers to the facts as they exist in reality, not as they are known and alleged by the prosecution. Your hypothetical yacht murder is actually a good illustration of how the distinction can be relevant. The specific time and place of the murder may be known only to one living person, and may never be known by anyone else, but what matters is that there is a specific time and place at which the crime occurred, sufficient to distinguish it from other crimes with different underlying facts. If the husband turned up alive six years later and she killed him "again", this time shooting him right in the middle of Times Square (or whatever was said in the movie) there'd undoubtedly be a lot to sort out, but one thing we'd know for sure is that the facts of the first murder—whatever they were—are different from those of the second.

I'm going to go ahead and change the source to a transcript of the actual interview with Dershowitz (I don't know why that wasn't the source all along), but I'll wait a day or so to do anything else. A couple of times now you've reverted edits that removed the "what he claims" language from Dershowitz's analysis, making it appear as if there's an argument that the movie's statement of the law is correct. I have no doubt that it isn't, and I don't think it's appropriate for this article to imply that there's any reason to question Dershowitz's expertise on this point without at least providing a reliable source. Jwsinclair (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Astrohoundy (User talk:Astrohoundy|talk]]) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Edward Carson's claim that "If you kill a person on July 5, 2005, and then kill the same person again on July 5, 2011—regardless of whatever screwy chain of events allowed something so seemingly illogical to happen, and regardless of your various options for redress of the harm caused by the wrongful conviction—you've committed two different crimes" is incorrect. A person can only be murdered once so the murder of an individual is a single action. The woman was in jeopardy the first time for an act she did not commit then, but was still in jeopardy for it. In the unique case of murder, the act is specifically defined as the one that resulted in deliberate death of the victim. If she were to then murder the person, she would be actually committing the very same act of murder for which she was already tried and sentenced. Dershowitz's argument is contested by other legal scholars possibly including the script writer David Weisberg.

Jwsinclair, Two things:

A year ago when I claimed Dershowitz was wrong, and giving a lengthy argument to support my case, I did not edit the page to state “Dershowitz is wrong in claiming …..” I merely took the neutral position stating “Dershowitz claims…”. But when you give a lengthy argument to oppose my case you end up by editing the main article to the effect that Dershowitz is right! Whatever the strength of your argument I think it is a bit rich to claim “the truth” merely on the word of a celebrity lawyer. I think the final editing should be left to “he claims, she claims” until you can find Supreme Court case law on the exact point. OK it doesn’t have to be a glamorous brunette set up by a manipulating art dealer, but you know what I mean.

Secondly, you claim ‘Under what basis in law or logic are two distinct murders six years apart the "same offense"?’ Well for a start, they are not two murders, even though they may be two charges of murder of the same individual. Under law, look at The Crimes Act in your local jurisdiction and you will not notice accompanying the description of any crime the phrase "as long as the date and place can be ascertained" ; under logic, you cannot kill someone more than once, ergo there is no contradiction in the two offences being the same offence. ‘"a crime, for double jeopardy purposes, consists of a specific set of facts" refers to the facts as they exist in reality, not as they are known and alleged by the prosecution.’ Sinclair, you cannot say “a crime consists of a specific set of facts, whether or not they are known by the prosecution,…err for double jeopardy purposes at least, but otherwise it doesn’t matter.” This is just blatantly self serving. The law is the law is the law. You cannot make up variations to suit your own interpretation of things. Your argument that the movie premise is wrong only works when you claim that a crime must be place and date stamped, even if the prosecution doesn’t know it. That of course would be futile. If the prosecution doesn’t know it then in certain situations they would not be able to claim there is a crime in the first place. Edward Carson (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this case is pretty cut and dry, actually, and that the title had simply been chosen to suggest a stylistic adaptation of the concept named, as opposed to a strictly literal depiction. (Implying of course, that the inmate in the movie is themselves mistaken in their suggested advice.) All that any court would have to look at is whether death occurred the second time around (the time separating the two supposed deaths being more than enough to disqualify any arguments that they were in fact only one single death). Which being determined by a simple coroner's report, then becomes a unique event that has no prior legal proceeding attached to it, and which ought to be investigated and prosecuted. It might be controversial whether the deceased #2 is or isn't the same individual as deceased #1, but the fact of the latter death would simply disprove the first death if it's declared the victim in both crimes was the same. In short, the entire argument for the literal interpretation must depend on some contrivance in the legal system such as "a court must stick by the declaration of the earliest death of each individual," i.e. one whose existence a clever script writer is unlikely to entertain. 173.3.62.9 (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Even though the thought of a person having the legal right, because of an unforseen eccentricity of the law, to walk up to someone in broad daylight and gun him down, carte blanche, would certainly unsettle some people, we should not let our emotions dictate to us that therefore, that just can’t be what the law is. We are always free to change the law or the constitution but until then we must remember to honor The Rule of Law. The law is what the law is, not what we would like it to be. I accept that it is the prima facia situation for most people to believe that the fifth amendment surely does not mean this, but once one has looked at the reasoning in detail, I am surprised how many people still refuse to accept it.

Allow me to give another analogy. Henry Hermit lives alone in a secluded cabin in a remote area. When regular communication with relatives is suddenly broken off, authorities are asked to check on him to see if he is OK. He is discovered to have been murdered and due to the state of body decay and other factors, the date of death is assumed. A suspect with a lot of incriminating evidence against him is arrested and sent to trial. At trial the defendant presents rock solid alibi evidence and the jury feel they must bring in an acquittal despite the prosecution evidence. Months later, on further investigation, the police discover that the accused prepared this brilliant plan whereby he committed the murder three months earlier and arranged things to make it appear it happened at the later date. With this new evidence the police again bring the accused up for arraignment, only to be asked by the judge “But doesn’t jeopardy apply here and prevent a repeat prosecution?” “Not so your Honor” declares the ADA, “The first trial was for the offence of killing Henry Hermit on the 10th January 2012. This is a completely different offence; killing Henry Hermit on the 10th October 2011.”

To quote that great source of legal jurisprudence, the actor playing the Harvard law professor in the film, Legally Blonde, “The law is reason devoid of passion.” Many people are uncomfortable with the fact that the great Fifth Amendment can have ridiculous manifestations; therefore they will not accept some possible outcomes which are actual results of its application. Their passion is getting the better of them.Edward Carson (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A more solid legal argument

I think that the above discussion essentially "misses the point". The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy means, in brief, that the government cannot try a person twice for the same offense. In this film, the first murder was committed in the State of Washington. Therefore, the government of the State of Washington cannot try Ashley Judd twice for the same offense. However, this says nothing about the government of the State of Louisiana. The second murder was committed in Louisiana. Therefore, the government of the State of Louisiana is free to try Ashley Judd for murder; that is, the government of the State of Louisiana is not barred by the provisions of double jeopardy. The government of the State of Louisiana never put Ashley Judd in jeopardy the first time (for the first murder); therefore, the government of the State of Louisiana never has to worry about double jeopardy for the second murder, since that government never put her in jeopardy to begin with. If anything, only the State of Washington would be prohibited from pursuing a second conviction. The workings of the government of the State of Washington in no way impede the workings of the government of the State of Louisiana. They are two entirely different jurisdictions. There is also a second point, which was briefly stated above. Whether the legal arguments are valid or invalid does not really matter. The characters in the movie have made some assertions about the law. It is entirely feasible that these characters were mistaken in their statements and beliefs construing the double jeopardy concept. So, even if the concept of double jeopardy as described in the film may be totally inaccurate, the characters in the film (erroneously) believed them to be accurate. Thus, the events unfolded in the film according to the (mistaken and erroneous) beliefs of these characters. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Joseph, Thanks for your contribution. Re “…even if the concept of double jeopardy as described in the film may be totally inaccurate”. The Ashley Judd character was told in prison by a fellow inmate of the DJ concept. As it is reasonable to believe the prison was still in the same state as the conviction, the concept of her legally killing her hubby would be valid, if presumably also done where they actually live. Notwithstanding, the law you have quoted is quite correct, albeit a questionable judicial interpretation of the fifth amendment. (One would think an amendment for the whole republic would imply the jurisdiction was also the whole republic rather than broken up for as many jurisdictions as there are states.) However this debate has all begun because of the reference to Professor Alan Dershowitz who did not give the different state argument but addressed the principle itself, and by the above arguments, appears to be wrong. Edward Carson (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What WE think is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not allow original research (WP:OR), and needs to only use reliable sources (WP:RS). Whether Dershowitz is right or wrong does not matter - unless there is a reliable source claiming otherwise, his should be the only critique in the article. Therefore, I intend to remove everything except Dershowitz' commentary from the "Legal accuracy" section. Adpete (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The one that everyone seems to miss, and which I find interesting, is that shooting her ex-husband dead cannot be called "murder". Her husband is DEAD. He has to be, since she went for murder. That means that legally, he isn't alive. So, at MOST, she might get "desecration of a corpse". You cannot, legally speaking, murder an already dead person. And desecration of a corpse, with a fire-arm, is at best a misdemeanor. 213.113.23.11 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Two assumed names

Although Nicholas does have another assumed name in the plot line prior to making up his identity as Deveraux, since nowhere in the article is this mentioned it seems wrong to then state that this is some sort of "subsequent" assumed name. 75.252.174.236 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Double Jeopardy (film) → Double Jeopardy (1999 film) – I've seen this issue brought up with other articles before, so I'll give this one a shot. Since this article is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Double Jeopardy, and there are other films of the same name (Double Jeopardy (1955 film) and Double Jeopardy (1992 film)), I think it should be disambiguated with the year per WP:NCFILM#Between films of the same name. The article's current name is an WP:INCDAB. Titles of this nature are discussed at WP:PDAB, but there seems to be no site-wide consensus as to what should be done and different discussions often produce different results. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 06:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support haven't seen different results, the rule is quite clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom/WP:NCF. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Multiple films with the same title are usually disambiguated by year of release. Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grammar

Pronoun antecedent agreement is incorrect. Example: When someone (singular) ….they (plural) … This is an error in agreement. 66.68.222.197 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Filming location?

Why is there no mention of the filming location or details like that? Even who wrote the screenplay for this film is missing. Would be nice to fill in certain background details like this that are usually on movie pages. Bdavid1111 (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Present cast list is incorrect e.g., Robert de Niro is NOT in this film!!!

Stars Ashley Judd, Tommy Lee Jones and Bruce Greenwood Michael's wife (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)