© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
We must still be careful of anachronism. I suggest the appropriate way to assess the law and ethics involved in the double jeopardy arguments which arise in Joseph Smith’s case (based on 1838 facts) is to inquire as to the intent of the Prosecutor and Judge Reynolds in 1839 when the former asked the latter to dismiss the indictments.
In the U.S. legal system, jeopardy does not apply until a jury has been sworn in to hear the case. The wording in the Missouri Constitution seems to support that interpretation as well. The various legal efforts by Missouri may have been vexatious, but unless I am missing something, I don’t believe the matter had ever been before a jury on the merits and thus, the double jeopardy provision would not have applied.