Is everyone who is acquitted in a criminal trial "acquitted with prejudice"?

Question

If someone is charged with a crime, acquitted, then charged again for the same crime, that is unconstitutional double jeopardy. Since when a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, it means the plaintiff can't sue the defendant for the same thing again, does that mean anyone who is acquitted is "acquitted with prejudice"?

Answer 1

"Acquittal with prejudice" isn't a phrase a lawyer would use, but your characterization is correct. There are no acquittals without prejudice, though a charge could be dismissed without prejudice, at any point before an acquittal.

Answer 2

In general I agree with the answers by user bdb484 and Nate Eldredge. However there is a significant exception.

If a person is accused of, tried for, and acquitted of a crime under state law, the state cannot again bring the same person to trial for the same acts (events). That would be double jeopardy. But if those same acts are also a crime under Federal law, the Federal Government may separately try the accused, and double jeopardy is not a bar to such a trial. The same is true if the federal government goes first, a later state trial is OK.

Also, if a trial is so marred by corruption that the accused was never truly at risk, double jeopardy does not apply. For example if the Judge or a jury member has been bribed to acquit. This is very rare, but there is at least one case where a later trial was allowed on this ground.

Answer 3

Normally "prejudice" only applies to a dismissal or other order that ends a case before a verdict is reached. I assume that's where the "pre" comes from.

So I don't think one would use the terminology "acquittal with prejudice", because an acquittal by definition is a verdict.

But you are correct that they both have the effect of preventing the losing party from bringing the same case again.