It's probably too late for this to do you any practical good, but:
You cannot "sue someone in criminal court". Suing is a civil matter.
You can sue someone in civil court, and they can still be tried by the government in criminal court. In fact, this happens quite frequently. The two cases are not necessarily tightly coupled, and it's possible for a defendant to win one and lose the other; to give a famous example, OJ Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges, but lost a civil suit stemming from the same incident.
Note that "possible" doesn't mean "likely". The officer mentioned in the discussion may have been giving you a realistic assessment of his experience with the local district attorney's office prioritization of cases, as opposed to just being lazy. For that matter, from your standpoint, winning a civil case (in which you might actually recover some of your expenses, though if someone is illegally driving without insurance, it's a fair bet they don't have much in the way of assets anyway) is more beneficial than sending the guy to jail, so he was actually doing you a favor.
The double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution applies only to criminal charges.
Double jeopardy, which prevents an individual from being tried twice for the same offense in criminal law, generally does not apply to administrative cases. Administrative proceedings are considered separate from criminal prosecutions, and individuals can face both criminal charges and administrative penalties for the same conduct. However, specific legal interpretations can vary by jurisdiction and the context of the case. Always consult legal counsel for advice on specific situations.
No, double jeopardy does not apply if new evidence is found in a criminal case. Double jeopardy protects individuals from being tried for the same crime twice based on the same evidence, but new evidence can lead to a new trial.
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal.
Yes, double jeopardy applies to both state and federal charges. This legal principle prohibits a person from being tried twice for the same offense in the same jurisdiction.
He must have a single trial for both charges or it would be Double Jeopardy. Double Jeopardy only applies to being tried twice for the same crime. The act of robbery and the act of murder are separate crimes. Whether it is called Double Jeopardy or not they cannot treat the crimes separate and can not charge you for one after you have been tried for the other or you will have excellent grounds for appeal
Double Jeopardy Clause
Double jeopardy applies to criminal cases and prevents a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense. It does not apply to civil lawsuits, so a defendant could potentially be held liable for damages in a civil case even if they were previously acquitted of the same offense in a criminal trial.
It will depend on the crime that has been committed if a person can press charges 3 years after the crime. If is a different crime, it will depend on the statute of limitations. However, a person cannnot be charged for a crime twice. That's considered double jeopardy.
The double jeopardy exception for introducing new evidence in a criminal case is when new evidence is discovered after a trial has ended, but it can only be used if it proves the defendant's innocence. This exception allows for a new trial to take place in order to ensure justice is served.
double jeopardy. Double Jepordy But it's very different in America, meaning you cannot be tried for the EXACT crime twice, but in Australia if you are tried and found innocent, you cannot be tried Guilty for the same crime.... That and Double Jeopardy is a movie =)
It is not the conduct that a person is tried for but the act. If a person did things in both states at different times it would not be what double jeopardy is about.