MORE SPOILER DISCUSSION:
I'd have to watch the movie again and I will I haven't seen since I first posted back in Aug and as you might know, I've seen a few movies since then.
So I'll watch it again this week and refresh my mind, but if I recall from talks after the movie, a friend of mind looked up on WestLaw ($3000 a year case law online service, what a excellent use of that expense) if there was an exception as noted in the movie to the 5th amendment of double jeopardy and I don't think they found anything, so I'm going to have to call him and get the talks here going again. However, the majority opinion is that the double jeopardy rules applies because it falls into the lesser or greater than charges of the same offense. Then you get into the entire game of collateral estoppel doctrine which runs headlong into the constitutional due process, but that's another argument unto itself.
To put it in simple terms if you run a red light and you are charged with running a red light
, but you get off. You can not be subsequently prosecuted for failure to yield
on the same offence as the case as been tried and verdict rendered. Also the information grained from the cop would be inadmissible as the "murderer" had not had his Miranda right read and there for we land back at the 5th amendment again. ("nemo tenetur seipsum accusare" or "no man is bound to accuse himself.")
I don't think a Commonwealth Attorney in KY (The DA about everywhere else.) would bring subsequent charges as it would be extremely difficult to to prosecute as all the evidence in the first trail would be again inadmissible and the manner of the latter information is iffy at best. A quality defense lawyer would have a field day with this one.
It would be a very interesting case if they did, and normally law bores me to death as I live with it. LOL
Nonetheless it was a very good movie that raised some very interesting questions. (for us nitpickers)