There are different definitions of Double Jeopardy but the purpose of all definition is the same. A second time trial of a person for the same offense for which he or she was already convicted or prosecuted is known as double jeopardy. It can be defined in another way such as that defendant faces the second time prosecution of the same crime or offense which is prohibited by the Constitution of U.S. However double jeopardy is constituted by the separate proceeding under federal and state laws for the offenses of the same incident.
A case of United States V. Dixon, 509 U.S. (1993)
This case involved the double jeopardy and concerned issues with two different defendants. These two defendants included the Dixon and Foster. Dixon was arrested due to second murder and was released on bond. This bond specified not to commit the crime and warned the Dixon that violation of any condition would subject him for the prosecution for criminal contempt. Later Dixon was arrested on the allegation that he possessed the Cocaine to distribute. He committed a contempt of court because he was involved in the drug offense. He moved to dismiss the drug charge based upon the jeopardy grounds. Under the Block burger test court ruled that Dixon's second drug offense did not include any element of his previous offense. Therefore the prosecution of drug offense was barred due to Double Jeopardy Clause.
In the above discussed Double Jeopardy Case the relevant court determined that Dixon ruling required that a court considered the specific offenses at issue during the contempt proceeding and compared the elements of offense with the later charge offense. However in the Defendant Foster Case the prosecution of simple assault was barred because it based upon the prior criminal contempt violating the CPO provision which has forbidden him to not commit simple assault. In the court criminal contempt prosecution needed the proof of element. Foster has physically attacked her wife and also assaulted two times. The trial judges asked her counsel to prove the element of protection in CPO and also the Foster's committed a criminal assault. Defendant Foster moved to dismiss the counts based upon the Double Jeopardy. Therefore the Foster was acquitted of those charges in criminal contempt proceeding.
So for we have discussed the case where the Double Jeopardy was applied and defendants Dixon and Foster were acquitted due to the charges in earlier offenses. However in U.S. 14th amendments provides the limitation of Double Jeopardy. The concept of the Double Jeopardy is clear from the cases discussed above in paper. State and all its resources are powered to not allow the repeated attempts convicting an individual in an alleged offense. The concept of the Double Jeopardy is taken back from history but its development has been uneven. Throughout the history particularly in Palko v.Connecticut case Court rejected that 14th amendment incorporated all the first eight amendments.
Arguments in Bill of Rights the Double Jeopardy clause was not so necessary and fair trial could be continued without it. Double Jeopardy prohibition is only applied when final judgment is given against the defendant. Until final judgment is not made against the defendant he/she is not placed in Jeopardy. There are several cases in which final judgment is not made and hence Double Judgment is not applied there. Double Jeopardy does not apply in civil cases rather only in criminal cases. For example OJ Simpson faced the trials of murder and state civil; acquitted from the murder case but was found guilty in civil case. He paid the damages to victim. However he was not tried twice by the state or by the Federal government.