Which statement accurately describes the Double Jeopardy Clause protection?

Which statement accurately describes the Double Jeopardy Clause protection?

• A. Protection against the right to counsel conflicts.
• B. Protection against a line item from being indicted.
• C. Being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense after jeopardy attaches.
• D. Exclusion of illegally obtained evidence.

Answer: (C)

Double Jeopardy protects you from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense after jeopardy attaches. Jeopardy attaches at the start of the trial—in a jury trial, when the jury is sworn; in a bench trial, when the first witness is sworn; and, if you plead guilty, when the court accepts the plea. The protection covers both second prosecutions and second punishments by the same government for the same offense, with “same offense” usually determined by the elements test (Blockburger): if each offense requires proof of a different element, they aren’t the same offense. The other concepts mentioned aren’t about double jeopardy: the right to counsel is a separate Sixth Amendment issue, line-item indictments aren’t a doctrine addressed by double jeopardy, and the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence is the exclusionary rule under a different constitutional provision.

Double Jeopardy protects you from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense after jeopardy attaches. Jeopardy attaches at the start of the trial—in a jury trial, when the jury is sworn; in a bench trial, when the first witness is sworn; and, if you plead guilty, when the court accepts the plea. The protection covers both second prosecutions and second punishments by the same government for the same offense, with “same offense” usually determined by the elements test (Blockburger): if each offense requires proof of a different element, they aren’t the same offense. The other concepts mentioned aren’t about double jeopardy: the right to counsel is a separate Sixth Amendment issue, line-item indictments aren’t a doctrine addressed by double jeopardy, and the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence is the exclusionary rule under a different constitutional provision.