The movie thriller, "Double Jeopardy" gets the concept of double jeopardy completely wrong.  Here, I'll explain the basics of double jeopardy under the law and how the movie got it wrong.

The legal concept of double jeopardy comes from the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a criminal defendant from being tried more than once by the same sovereign for the same offense.

First, double jeopardy only applies if the defendant was either convicted (found guilty) or acquitted (found not guilty) after the first trial.

Second, it must be the same sovereign that is trying the defendant both times.  Each government entity is a separate sovereign.  The federal government is separate from the states, and each state is a separate sovereign from the others.  Also a Native American tribal government is separate from the federal government and states.

A true crime example of this was shown during the trials of the LAPD Officers who were accused of beating Rodney King.  The four officers were initially charged by the state of California (through the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office).  They were acquitted of the charges in state court.  The acquittals sparked the L.A. Riots.  The federal government then charged the four officers with civil rights violations based on the same incident.  This was not precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the California and the federal government are two separate sovereigns.

The third requirement of double jeopardy is that the crimes charged in the first and second trials must be for the same offenses.  This is determined by the same elements test.  The elements of the crimes charged in the first and second cases are compared.  If there is an element that must be proven in each crime that is different from the other, than the crimes are not considered the same, and double jeopardy does not apply.

*SPOILER ALERT
In the movie "Double Jeopardy," a married couple spend a weekend sailing.  The wife, Libby (Ashley Judd), wakes up to find blood all over herself and the boat.  Her husband, Nick, is missing.  She arrested when the coast guard spots her holding a bloody knife, which she found on the deck.

Libby is convicted of Nick's murder.  Her best friend agrees to care for her four-year-old son while Libby is in prison.  While on the phone with her son, Libby hears a door open in the background, and her son yells, "Daddy."  The phone disconnects.

Libby suspects Nick faked his death and framed her for murder.  Another inmate advises Libby that when she was paroled, she could kill Nick with impunity because she had already been convicted of his murder, and the Double Jeopardy Clause would prevent her from being charged again.  Libby does just that.  (Tommy Lee Jones plays Libby's parole officer who at first investigates her violations of parole, then helps her once he realizes her story may be true.)

Lesson number one:  Never take legal advice from a fellow prison inmate - or a movie - without first checking with a lawyer.

Libby's fellow inmate, and this movie, get the concept of double jeopardy wrong.  If someone is wrongly convicted of murder, they do not then have free license to kill that person if the person is found alive.  

Although both charged crimes are for the murder of Nick, they are two separate incidents.  The dates, facts, and evidence supporting each charge would be completely different.  Therefore, the charges are not for the same offense.  

Also, in the movie, the first framed murder occurred in Washington state.  The second murder occurred in Louisiana.  Therefore, double jeopardy would not bar the second prosecution because the two states are not the same sovereign. 

Because she was falsely convicted the first time, she could probably sue and recover some money to compensate her for her time in prison, but she would not be able to use that first conviction as a defense for her the second (valid) charges.

Check out the movie by clicking below:

If you are a writer, get a free ebook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.  For your first free consultation on your project, contact me.

The book, "Silence of the Lambs," by Thomas Harris, was published in 1989.  The movie was released in 1991.  Both the book and movie hold up well over time.  They are just as engaging and creepy today as when they were released.

Clarice Starling (played by Jodie Foster in the movie) is an FBI trainee who is sent to meet with convicted serial killer and cannibal, the brilliant psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins).  The FBI is hunting a new serial killer known as Buffalo Bill, and they hope Dr. Lecter will open up to Starling and provide some insight.

Dr. Lecter does have information on Buffalo Bill, but he will not give it up before forcing Starling into a quid pro quo to get personal information from her.  Much of the story's force comes from the relationship between Starling and Dr. Lecter.  The desire to save Buffalo Bill's latest victim (who happens to be a powerful Senator's daughter) makes the situation urgent for the FBI.  But Dr. Lecter has all the time in the world.

Both the book and movie are smart and scary.  The book provides a little more detail and background.  But the parts changed or left out of the movie mostly made it better.

The movie won several Academy Awards, including all of the top five categories:  Best Picture, Best Actor for Anthony Hopkins, Best Actress for Jodie Foster, Best Director for Jonathan Demme, and Best Adapted Screenplay.

This is one of my top favorite movies of all time.  Check out the movie and book here:

If you're a writer, check out the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mysetry, and Legal Drama for free.

Although it is an older movie, "Presumed Innocent," starring Harrison Ford, is educational and can be used to teach many legal lessons.  It can be effectively used as part of a legal ethics or criminal law and procedure class. 

The basic premise of the movie is that Harrison Ford's character, Rusty Sabich, is an assistant district attorney who is accused of murdering his colleague and lover.  His boss, the elected district attorney, played by Brian Dennehy, assigns Rusty to handle the investigation into Carolyn Polhemus' death (played by Greta Scacchi).  Along the way, he hides his relationship with her, destroys evidence, learns that the boss was also sleeping with her, and winds up accused of murder. 

Right away, there is a conflict of interest.  Probably the District Attorney's Office handling the investigation at all would be a conflict, especially in a smaller office like the one depicted in the movie.  Normally, such a case would be handled by the state Attorney General's Office.  Rusty has an even greater conflict than Carolyn's other colleagues because he had an illicit affair with her.  Rusty does not disclose his affair to his boss (even when the boss confides his own affair to Rusty), which creates a greater appearance of impropriety.

The movie does a good job of showing the different roles and obligations of prosecutors and defense attorneys.  The main character is a prosecutor who is charged with a crime.  The movie shows his interactions with his hired defense attorney, played by Raul Julia.  It shows advice given by the defense attorney to his client, like pleading the Fifth in the grand jury, even though his client may not want to take it.  It also explains why he should do so even though it will make him look guilty - you don't want to give the prosecution pre-trial statements to use against you.  The movie also shows strategic decisions made by the defense attorney along the way.

There is a part in the movie where the prosecutor wants to put in evidence statements that Rusty made to him.  The judge correctly rules that the the prosecutor will not be permitted to testify in the case unless he steps down as prosecutor and lets someone else take over the case.  This points to a key mistake that many books, TV shows, and movies make, which is having the attorney investigate crimes and question witnesses alone.  That's what investigators are for.  (Learn more about this in my free ebook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.)

"Presumed Innocent" also shows the practical reality that sometimes things outside the courtroom can make all the difference in the outcome of a case.  (SPOILER ALERT)  In that case it was the defense attorney's knowledge of the trial judge's past unethical behavior that gave the defense an edge. 

The movie can be used as a good example of how to show probable cause to get a search warrant.  In the movie, the police had Rusty's fingerprints on a glass in Carolyn's apartment, phone records showed many calls between Rusty and Carolyn, including one call the night of the murder, Rusty's blood type matched semen found inside the victim (the book and movie were pre-DNA), and unknown carpet fibers were found in the victim's apartment. 

NOTE, however, that the police in the movie choose not to search for a murder weapon.  In reality, the police will always search for a murder weapon at the home of their primary suspect.  (The reason this is done in the movie is because a twist at the end revolves around discovery of the murder weapon.)

Finally, there are two incidents in the movie where Rusty destroys evidence.  That is obviously a big no-no -- for an attorney or anyone else. 

This is one of the few examples of a movie that gets most of the legal stuff right.  (It would probably be my second choice of an accurate legal film after My Cousin Vinny.)  It is also a compelling story that stands up to the test of time.  The book upon which the movie is based, also called "Presumed Innocent" by Scott Turrow, is excellent as well.  (Click below to check out the movies or book.)

Sign up to receive my free ebook revealing theTop 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

Gillian Flynn is the author of the popular novel "Gone Girl," which I previously reviewed.  As much as I liked Gone Girl, Dark Places was even better.

The main character, Libby Day, is a woman who was just a little girl when her entire family was slaughtered in the middle of the night at home.  Her teenage brother, Ben Day, was tried and convicted of their murders, and she has not seen him since.  Her testimony helped put him away, and she believed he was guilty.

Libby is approached by someone in a murder club, a group of people who discuss and sometimes try to solve infamous crimes.  The club believes Ben is innocent and blames Libby for unjustly putting him behind bars.  Based on her interactions with the club, Libby goes on a kind of quest to learn the truth about her family's murders.

This was a fascinating look at a unique and sympathetic situation.  Libby Day is nothing like I would have imagined a mass murder survivor to be.  Gillian Flynn has a way of making even the most insane situations absolutely realistic and shocking.  She is also great at making an unlikeable person into a character that you can't stop reading about. 

She also has a taste for the disgusting.  What might have been a sentence about someone throwing up is instead a two-paragraph description of the color, smell, consistency, and more of the puke.  Her details and phrasing are memorable and impressive, if sometimes off-putting.  But that is life.

I have now read all three of Gillian Flynn's novels, including Gone Girl and Sharp Objects.  "Dark Places" is by far my favorite.  A dark and witty read that you won't want to put down.

Crime and legal writers, check out my writer's guide revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

A recent Grey's Anatomy episode, "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word" (season 10, episode 9), made it clear that the show should stick to medicine and stay out of the courtroom.  Or at least hire a legal consultant when a storyline turns legal.

In the episode, Calley went to trial in a medical malpractice case.  The mistakes throughout the episode were many and cringeworthy. 

To start with, a period of four months supposedly passed between the time of the act of malpractice (a hip replacement surgery that ended with both legs amputated from an Olympic snowboarded) to the time of trial.  Four months!  Anyone who has had even the slightest interaction with America's court systems knows that nothing moves that quickly.  Least of all a civil lawsuit involving detailed medical information that goes to a jury trial.  Four years would be slightly more realistic.

But, I understand there are more important time needs in the story, so I'll move on.  An even more flagrant problem, and one that had no requirement in teh story, was the confusion between a civil lawsuit, which this was, and a criminal prosecution, which this wasn't.  The writers do not seem to understand something very basic that most Americans should know about their legal system.

There are two completely separate and different legal systems in our country.  Civil cases are where people (or corporations or governments) sue other people (or corporations or governments) for some wrong.  If the person suing (plaintiff) wins, they are usually awarded money.

Criminal cases are where the government (and only the government), whether state, city, or federal, charges someone with a crime.  If the government wins, the defendant might be fined, and/or be sent to jail or prison, or in some cases even be put to death.

The terms used in each of these two systems are often different.  And this is where Grey's Anatomy got so embarrassingly off-track.  After the plaintiff's attorney finished questioning a witness, he exclaimed, "The prosecution rests."  Since this was a civil lawsuit, there was no "prosecution."  There was only a plaintiff. 

SPOILER ALERT  At the end, when the verdict was read, the jury foreperson announced, "Not guilty."  Again, since this was a civil suit, no one could be found guilty or not guilty.  Those terms are only used when someone has been charged with a crime.

There were several more minor errors throughout the show.  Most of these problems could have been easily corrected by having a legal consultant read through the script and/or be present for filming. 

The result of so many basic and easily-fixable errors was that the show looked poorly researched and inauthentic.  If their medical errors are as bad as their legal ones, I have to seriously question this show's credibility.  Not that a medical or legal show has to bee 100% accurate, but such basic mistakes can seriously undermine the show.

To avoid similar mistakes, get your free writer's guide revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

Gone Girl was an exciting and fast read. 

The basic premise of the book is that a woman goes missing, and her husband is suspected of murdering her. 

There are twists - big and small - throughout the book.  It keeps you guessing to the end.  I really can't say too much about the story because I don't want to give anything away.  It's best to read this book without knowing too much because part of the enjoyment in reading it came from the unexpected turns the story and characters take.

The narrator alternates every chapter, back and forth from the point-of-view of the husband and the wife.  The book is like watching a good Dateline episode.  But it's even better because you get insight into the psyche of both the suspect and the victim.

Although none of the characters are very likeable, the writing is crisp and clever.  It was hard to put down. 

I would highly recommend Gone Girl to anyone who enjoys murder mysteries.  (Get the book by clicking the photo or link above or below.)

Update: I read and reviewed one of Gillian Flynn's other novels, Dark Places, which I liked even better than Gone Girl.  I have also read her first novel, Sharp Objects, which I will review soon.

Get my free writer's guide revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

The American Bar Association released a list of what its panel of judges has determined to be the 25 Greatest Law Novels Ever.  Here are a few of my favorites that also made their list:

To Kill A Mockingbrid by Harper Lee is one of my favorite all-time books - law or not.  And I'm certainly not alone.  Harper Lee won the Pulitzer Prize for this novel, and Gregory Peck won an Oscar for his protrayal of Atticus Finch in the movie version.  Atticus defends a black man accused of raping a white woman in depression-era Alabama.  This story has themes of race, class, and justice, but it is told through the eyes of a child.  If you haven't read it since high school (or maybe never did), it's worth another look. 

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky is an fascinating psychological study in guilt.  The main character's increasing paranoia after committing murder is something that has stayed with me for years.

A Time to Kill by John Grisham is my favorite Grisham book.  This was his first book.  It is based on a real-life case.  The book is a story of race and revenge in the south with great characters.  The movie (starring Matthew McConaughey, Sandra Bullock, and Samuel L. Jackson is also excellent.

The Firm by John Grisham is not my favorite Grisham book (that award goes to A Time to Kill), but it's an exciting read.  A top graduate from Harvard Law School, Mitch McDeere is recruited to a high-paying job with great benefits.  He soon discovers that his new firm is a cover-up for serious criminal activity, and that his life and career are on the line.  The movie starring Tom Cruise is a faithful rendition of the book.

Presumed Innocent by Scott Turow is about a prosecutor accused of murdering his colleague/mistress.  This was Turow's first novel, and it's filled with political intrigue and legal maneuvering.  The movie starring Harrison Ford is a great rendition of the book.

The Stranger by Albert Camus revolves around the murder trial of Meursault. Meursault's lack of emotion is interpreted as a lack of remorse, and he is condemned to the guillotine.  But facing death, he finds himself oddly comforted by the simple fact of his own life.

And here are a few on my To-Read List:

Anatomy of a Murder by Robert Traver is based on a real life case.  A man kills his wife's rapist and claims the insanity defense at trial.  Robert Traver was the pen name of a Michigan Supreme Court Justice, John D. Voelker.  I've used the movie (starring James Stewart and directed by Otto Preminger) in my criminal law and procedure classes as a tool to teach the insanity defense.

Native Son by Richard Wright is also based on a true story.  It follows the life of Bigger Thomas, a young Chicago black man whose discomfort with whites drives him deeper and deeper into trouble for reasons he cannot seem to explain, and results in him being condemned to death for two murders.

And Honorable Mention goes to:

In Cold Blood by Truman Capote is a nonfiction true crime book written in the style of a novel.  It was one of the first to be written this way, and it remains one of the best.  For a great behid-the-scenes look at both this book and To Kill a Mockingbird (above), check out the movie Capote.   Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar for his prtrayal of the author.

Do you agree or disagree with these choices?  Let me know!

If you are a writer, check out my free writer's guide revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

I downloaded this book for free on Kindle, and was pleasantly surprised.  (As of this writing, it's still available for free on Kindle - click the picture or link below:)

This mystery-thriller was fast-paced, if predictible.  Although I could see many of the plot twists coming, there were a lot of turns that kept the story moving at a good pace and kept me interested. 

The main protagonist is a Twin Cities cop named Mac McRyan.  (Even after reading the book, I'm not sure where the Twin Cities are, other than somewhere in the midwest bordering multiple states.)  McRyan is pretty much perfect.  Young, rugged, Hollywood good-looking, and law-school smart.  His perfection is his downfall as a protagonist.  It's hard to relate to him.  He never gives up on a case, which is what makes him such a great detective, of course.

The case begins when a famous and well-off lawyer's daughter is kidnapped in broad daylight.  From the start, the kidnapping looks like a professional job, with little evidence left behind.  When the Police Chief's daughter is also kidnapped, McRyan and "the boys" know they are dealing with a personal vendetta. 

The FBI is called in to run the investigation, but the local cops stay on the case.  Each possible clue turns into a dead end or an intentional red herring.  The kidnappers have planned well and considered every scenario.  They bury the kidnapped girls in a grave with limited air, setting a short deadline for McRyan to solve the crime and save the girls.  

Despite their meticulous planning, it appears the kidnappers have underestimated McRyan, who sees potential connections and evidence where others do not.  Will McRyan get to the girls before they die?  Will he catch the kidnappers before they escape?

The story follows both the kidnappers and the cops set on catching them.  The book was written well enough to keep those two storylines separate yet intertwined.

There are hints throughout the book of McRyan's personal and professional past, which worked to get me interested in reading the prior books in the series - "First Case" and "The St. Paul Conspiracy" (or get all three in the box set for a low price - see below). 

I would recommend this book as a decent, well-paced mytery.  It was a quick and easy read for fans of crime and mystery books.

Writers and filmmakers, sign up for my free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

It is common advice given to new lawyers in trial:  Never ask a question you don't know the answer to.  The idea is that you don't want to be surprised by a witness and have someone (intentionally or unintentionally) torpedo your case from the witness stand.

The following legendary story of grandma going to court illustrates this concept in a funny and unexpected way:

(Unfortunately, this story isn't true.  http://www.snopes.com/legal/grandmacourt.asp.)

Of course, in real life, attorneys are not usually afraid of the witness revealing embarrassing information about them, but are concerned the witness will say something unexpected about the evidence that effectively ruins the attorney's case.  This can happen as a result of lack of proper preparation.  Or, in criminal cases, it can happen because of little or no opportunity to talk to the witness before trial.

A victim or witness is not required to speak to or cooperate with the attorneys on either side of a criminal case.  Unlike in a civil case, there are usually no depositions or interrogatories, or other opportunities to question a witness before trial.  The witness may have been questioned to some degree during a grand jury proceeding or preliminary hearing.  But often a criminal attorney has to rely on statements the victim or witness previously made to police or others. 

That is why, in the field of criminal law, it is a myth to suggest that a lawyer should never ask a question to which she does not know the answer.

For an example of why an attorney should not ask a question without first knowing the answer, check out the Academy Award winning movie "Anatomy of a Murder" with George C. Scott and Jimmy Stewart:

Sign up for your free ebook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I'm going to Hawaii this week, and I've got it on the brain.  Here are my favorite movies set in Hawaii (in no particular order) - I could stretch to find tie-ins to crime and law in each of these, but I wouldn't consider any to be truly legal drama or crime movies.  Just some good movies set on a beautiful island.

(Click the pictures to check out the movie.)

The Descendants
(George Clooney)

Forgetting Sarah Marshall
(Jason Segal, Russell Brand, Kristen Bell, Mila Kunis, Jonah Hill, Paul Rudd)

And, of course, no list of Hawaiian movies would be complete without Elvis...
Blue Hawaii
(Elvis Presley)

And because it's the only decent crime show set in Hawaii, honorable mention goes to:
Hawaii Five-O

Okay, that's it, one of you needs to write a good legal drama set in Hawaii!  Who's in??

**Get your free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.