text:
Double jeopardy

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence (primarily in common law jurisdictions) that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law – in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions bars only an identical prosecution for the same offence; however, a different offence may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger – it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.

A variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit ('previously acquitted') or autrefois convict ('previously convicted'). These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem ('not twice against the same').

Availability as a legal defence
If a double jeopardy issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will typically rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, certain exemptions are permitted. In Scotland, a new trial can be initiated if, for example, the acquitted has made a credible admission of guilt. Part of English law for over 800 years, it was partially abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where, following demand for change, serious offences may be re-tried following an acquittal if new and compelling evidence is found, and if the trial is found to be in the public's interest. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico, and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right. In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.

In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit ('previously acquitted') or autrefois convict ('previously convicted'), with the same effect.

Double jeopardy is not a principle of international law. It does not apply between different countries, unless having been contractually agreed on between those countries as, for example, in the European Union (Art. 54 Schengen Convention), and in various extradition treaties between two countries.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The 72 signatories and 166 parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise, under Article 14 (7): "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country." However, it does not apply to prosecutions by two different sovereigns (unless the relevant extradition treaty expresses a prohibition).

European Convention on Human Rights
All members of the Council of Europe (which includes nearly all European countries and every member of the European Union) have adopted the European Convention on Human Rights. The optional Protocol No. 7 to the convention, Article 4, protects against double jeopardy: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

All EU states ratified this optional protocol except for Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.

Member states may, however, implement legislation which allows the reopening of a case if new evidence is found or if there was a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings:

"The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case."

In many European countries, the prosecution may appeal an acquittal to a higher court. This is not regarded as double jeopardy, but as a continuation of the same case. The European Convention on Human Rights permits this by using the phrase "finally acquitted or convicted" as the trigger for prohibiting subsequent prosecution.

Australia
In contrast to other common law nations, Australian double jeopardy law has been held to further prevent the prosecution for perjury following a previous acquittal where a finding of perjury would controvert the acquittal. This was confirmed in the case of R v Carroll, where the police found new evidence convincingly disproving Carroll's sworn alibi two decades after he had been acquitted of murder charges in the death of Ipswich child Deidre Kennedy, and successfully prosecuted him for perjury. Public outcry following the overturn of his conviction (for perjury) by the High Court has led to widespread calls for reform of the law along the lines of the England and Wales legislation.

During a Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting of 2007, model legislation to rework double jeopardy laws was drafted, but there was no formal agreement for each state to introduce it. All states have now chosen to introduce legislation that mirrors COAG's recommendations on "fresh and compelling" evidence.

In New South Wales, retrials of serious cases with a minimum sentence of 20 years or more are now possible even if the original trial preceded the 2006 reform. On 17 October 2006, the New South Wales Parliament passed legislation abolishing the rule against double jeopardy in cases where:

 * an acquittal of a "life sentence offence" (murder, violent gang rape, large commercial supply or production of illegal drugs) is debunked by "fresh and compelling" evidence of guilt;
 * an acquittal of a "15 years or more sentence offence" was tainted (by perjury, bribery, or perversion of the course of justice).

On 30 July 2008, South Australia also introduced legislation to scrap parts of its double jeopardy law, legalising retrials for serious offences with "fresh and compelling" evidence, or if the acquittal was tainted.

In Western Australia, amendments introduced on 8 September 2011 allow retrial if "new and compelling" evidence is found. It applies to serious offences where the penalty is life imprisonment or imprisonment for 14 years or more. Acquittal because of tainting (witness intimidation, jury tampering, or perjury) also permits retrial.

In Tasmania, on 19 August 2008, amendments were introduced to allow retrial in serious cases if there is "fresh and compelling" evidence.

In Victoria on 21 December 2011, legislation was passed allowing new trials where there is "fresh and compelling DNA evidence, where the person acquitted subsequently admits to the crime, or where it becomes clear that key witnesses have given false evidence". However, retrial applications could only be made for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, arson causing death, serious drug offences and aggravated forms of rape and armed robbery.

In Queensland on 18 October 2007, the double jeopardy laws were modified to allow a retrial where fresh and compelling evidence becomes available after an acquittal for murder or a "tainted acquittal" for a crime carrying a 25-year or more sentence. A "tainted acquittal" requires a conviction for an administration of justice offence, such as perjury, that led to the original acquittal.

Canada
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. However, the prohibition only applies after an accused person has been "finally" convicted or acquitted. Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal based on legal errors. In rare circumstances, when a trial judge made all the factual findings necessary for a finding of guilt but misapplied the law, a court of appeal might also directly substitute an acquittal for a conviction. These cases are not considered double jeopardy because the appeal and the subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires the Crown to show that an error in law was made during the trial and that it contributed to the verdict. It has been argued that this test is unfairly beneficial to the prosecution. For instance, in his book My Life in Crime and Other Academic Adventures, Martin Friedland contends that the rule should be changed so that a retrial is granted only when the error is shown to be responsible for the verdict, not just a factor.

Though the charter permits appeals of acquittals, there are still constitutional limits imposed on the scope of these appeals. In Corp. Professionnelle des Médecins v. Thibault, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of Quebec law that allowed appellate courts to conduct a de novo review of both legal and factual findings. In doing so, it held that the scope of an appeal may not extend to challenging findings of fact where no legal error has been made. At this point, the court reasoned, the process ceases to be an appeal and instead becomes a new trial disguised as one.

A notable example cited by critics of Canada's appeal system is the case of Guy Paul Morin, who was wrongfully convicted in his second trial after the acquittal in his first trial was vacated by the Supreme Court. Another notable use of the system occurred in the case of child murderer Guy Turcotte, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the initial verdict of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder and ordered a second trial after it found that the judge had erroneously instructed the jury. Turcotte was later convicted of second-degree murder in the second trial.

France
Once all appeals have been exhausted on a case, the judgement is final and the action of the prosecution is closed (code of penal procedure, art. 6), except if the final ruling was forged. Prosecution for a crime already judged is impossible even if incriminating evidence has been found. However, a person who has been convicted may request another trial on the grounds of new exculpating evidence through a procedure known as révision.

French law allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal.

Germany
The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) for the Federal Republic of Germany protects against double jeopardy if a final verdict is pronounced. A verdict is final if nobody appeals against it.

"Nobody shall be punished multiple times for the same crime on the basis of general criminal law."

However, each trial party can appeal against a verdict in the first instance. The prosecution or the defendants can appeal against a judgement if they disagree with it. In this case, the trial starts again in the second instance, the court of appeal (Berufungsgericht), which reconsiders the facts and reasons and delivers a final judgement.

If one of the parties disagrees with the second instance's judgement, they can appeal it only for formal judicial reasons. The case will be checked in the third instance (Revisionsgericht) to see whether all laws were correctly applied.

The rule applies to the whole "historical event, which is usually considered a single historical course of actions the separation of which would seem unnatural". This is true even if new facts come to light that indicate other crimes.

The Penal Procedural Code (Strafprozessordnung) permits a retrial (Wiederaufnahmeverfahren), if it is in favour of the defendant or if the following events have happened:

"A retrial not in favour of the defendant is permissible after a final judgement,

 * 1) if a document that was considered authentic during the trial was actually not authentic or forged,
 * 2) if a witness or authorised expert wilfully or negligently made a wrong deposition or wilfully gave a wrong simple testimony,
 * 3) if a professional or lay judge, who made the decision, had committed a crime by violating his or her duties as a judge in the case
 * 4) if an acquitted defendant makes a credible confession in court or out of court."

In the case of an order of summary punishment, which can be issued by the court without a trial for lesser misdemeanours, there is a further exception:

"A retrial not in favour of the defendant is also permissible if the defendant has been convicted in a final order of summary punishment and new facts or evidence have been brought forward, which establish grounds for a conviction of a felony by themselves or in combination with earlier evidence."

In Germany, a felony is defined by § 12 (1) StGB as a crime that has a minimum of one year of imprisonment.

India
A partial protection against double jeopardy is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India, which states "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once". This provision enshrines the concept of autrefois convict, that no one convicted of an offence can be tried or punished a second time. However, it does not extend to autrefois acquit, and so if a person is acquitted of a crime he can be retried. In India, protection against autrefois acquit is a statutory right, not a fundamental one. Such protection is provided by provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than by the Constitution.

Japan
The Constitution of Japan, which came into effect on 3 May 1947, states in Article 39 that

"No person shall be held criminally liable for an act which was lawful at the time it was committed, or of which he has been acquitted, nor shall he be placed in double jeopardy."

However, in 1950, one defendant was found guilty in the District Court for crimes related to the election law and was sentenced to paying a fine. The prosecutor wanted a stronger sentence and appealed to the High Court. As a result, the defendant was sentenced to three months of imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the sentence was excessive when compared with precedents and that he had been placed in double jeopardy, which was in violation of Article 39. On 27 September 1950, all fifteen judges of the Supreme Court made the Grand Bench Decision to rule against the defendant and declared that a criminal proceeding in the District Court, High Court and Supreme Court is all one case and that there is no double jeopardy. In other words, if the prosecutor appeals against a judgement of not guilty or a guilty decision that they think does not impose a severe enough sentence, the defendant will not be placed in double jeopardy.

On 10 October 2003, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the area of double jeopardy. The case involved Article 235 of the Penal Code, which addresses "simple larceny", and Article 2 of the Law for Prevention and Disposition of Robbery, Theft, etc., which addresses "habitual larceny". The Court ruled that in the event that there are two trials for separate cases of simple larceny, it will not be considered double jeopardy, even if the prosecutor could have charged both of them as a single crime of habitual larceny. The defendant in this case had committed crimes of trespassing and simple larceny on 22 occasions. The defence counsel argued that the crimes were actually one offence of habitual larceny and that charging them as separate counts was double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled that it was within the prosecutor's discretion as to whether to charge the defendant with one count of habitual larceny or to charge them with multiple counts of trespassing and simple larceny. In either case, it is not considered double jeopardy.

Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the state prosecution can appeal a not-guilty verdict at the bench. New evidence can be applied during a retrial at a district court. Thus one can be tried twice for the same alleged crime. If one is convicted at the district court, the defence can make an appeal on procedural grounds to the supreme court. The supreme court might admit this complaint, and the case will be reopened yet again, at another district court. Again, new evidence might be introduced by the prosecution.

On 9 April 2013, the Dutch senate voted 36 "yes" versus 35 "no" in favour of a new law that allows the prosecutor to re-try a person who was found not guilty in court. This new law is limited to crimes where someone died and new evidence must have been gathered. The new law also works retroactively.

Pakistan
Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan protects a person from being punished or prosecuted more than once for the same offence. Section 403 of The Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates a situation where a person having once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction and acquitted by such court cannot be tried again for the same offence or for any other offence based on similar facts. The scope of section 403 is restricted to criminal proceedings and not to civil proceedings and departmental inquiries.

Serbia
This principle is incorporated into the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and further elaborated in its Criminal Procedure Act.

South Africa
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa forbids a retrial when there has already been an acquittal or a conviction.

"Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right ... not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted ..."

South Korea
Article 13 of the South Korean constitution provides that no citizen shall be placed in double jeopardy.

England and Wales
Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Pre-2003
The doctrines of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict persisted as part of the common law from the time of the Norman conquest of England; they were regarded as essential elements for protection of the subject's liberty and respect for due process of law in that there should be finality of proceedings. There were only three exceptions, all relatively recent, to the rules:

 * The prosecution has a right of appeal against acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.
 * A retrial is permissible if the interests of justice so require, following an appeal against conviction by a defendant.
 * A "tainted acquittal", where there has been an offence of interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness, can be challenged in the High Court.

In Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254, the Law Lords ruled that a defendant could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the same set of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted unless there are "special circumstances" proven by the prosecution. There is little case law on the meaning of "special circumstances", but it has been suggested that the emergence of new evidence would suffice.

A defendant who had been convicted of an offence could be given a second trial for an aggravated form of that offence if the facts constituting the aggravation were discovered after the first conviction. By contrast, a person who had been acquitted of a lesser offence could not be tried for an aggravated form even if new evidence became available.

Post-2003
Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light. The Law Commission later added its support to this in its report "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" (2001). A parallel report into the criminal justice system by Lord Justice Auld, a past Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report six months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that "the exceptions should [...] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify." 1999 was also the year of a highly publicised case in which a man, David Smith, was convicted of the murder of a prostitute after having been acquitted of the "almost identical" murder of sex worker Sarah Crump six years previously. Because of the double jeopardy laws that existed at the time, Smith could not be re-tried for Crump's murder, despite police insisting they were not looking for anybody else and that the case was closed and the BBC reporting that Smith had "beat" the earlier murder charge.

Both Jack Straw (then Home Secretary) and William Hague (then Leader of the Opposition) favoured the measures suggested by the Auld Report. These recommendations were implemented—not uncontroversially at the time—within the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and this provision came into force in April 2005. It opened certain serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence". Then Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, said that he expected no more than a handful of cases to be brought in a year.

Pressure by Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, Billy Dunlop, was initially acquitted and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the demand for legal change. On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Hogg's murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury, but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal, in November 2005, for permission for a new trial, which was granted. Dunlop pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.

On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be retried and found guilty of murder by a jury (Dunlop having confessed). In 1996 Weston had been acquitted of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995, but following the discovery in 2009 of compelling new evidence (Thompson's blood on Weston's boots) he was arrested and tried for a second time. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 13 years.

In December 2018, convicted paedophile Russell Bishop was also retried and found guilty by a jury for the Babes in the Wood murders of two 9-year-old girls, Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway, on 9 October 1986. At the original trial in 1987, a key piece of the prosecution's case rested on the recovery of a discarded blue sweatshirt. Under questioning, Bishop denied that the sweatshirt belonged to him, but his girlfriend, Jennifer Johnson, alleged the clothing was Bishop's, before she changed her story in the trial, telling the jury she had never seen the top before. Attributed to a series of blunders in the prosecution's case, Bishop was acquitted by the jury after two hours of deliberations. Three years later, Bishop was found guilty of the abduction, molestation, and attempted murder of a 7-year-old girl in February 1990. In 2014, re-examined by modern forensics, the sweatshirt contained traces of Bishop's DNA, and also had fibres on it from both of the girls' clothing. Tapings taken from Karen Hadaway's arm also yielded traces of Bishop's DNA. At the 2018 trial, a jury of seven men and five women returned a guilty verdict after two-and-a-half hours of deliberation.

On 14 November 2019, Michael Weir became the first person to be twice found guilty of a murder. He was originally convicted of the murder of Leonard Harris in 1999, but the conviction was quashed in 2000 by the Court of Appeal on a technicality. In 2018, new DNA evidence had been obtained and palm prints from both murder scenes were matched to Weir. Twenty years after the original conviction, Weir was convicted of the murder for a second time.

In February 2020, Merseyside Police called for further reform to the double jeopardy law in England so as to allow previously acquitted suspects to be re-interviewed by police. The force had wanted to re-interview a suspect in the unsolved case of the murders of John Greenwood and Gary Miller who had been acquitted of the crime in 1981, but were not permitted to do so. The force had also not been allowed to re-charge the man of murder in 2019, causing them to publicly request that the law be changed and stating: "We believe being able to re-question suspects could potentially lead to being able to demonstrate the new and compelling evidence needed to reopen particular cases, including the murders of John Greenwood and Gary Miller".

Scotland
The double jeopardy rule no longer applies absolutely in Scotland since the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force on 28 November 2011. The Act introduced three broad exceptions to the rule: where the acquittal had been tainted by an attempt to pervert the course of justice; where the accused admitted their guilt after acquittal; and where there was new evidence.

Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, effective 18 April 2005, makes certain "qualifying offence" (including murder, rape, kidnapping, specified sexual acts with young children, specified drug offences, defined acts of terrorism, as well as in certain cases attempts or conspiracies to commit the foregoing) subject to retrial after acquittal (including acquittals obtained before passage of the Act) if there is a finding by the Court of Appeal that there is "new and compelling evidence."

United States
In the United States, the protection in common law against double jeopardy is maintained through the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides:

"... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ..."

Conversely, double jeopardy comes with a key exception. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, multiple sovereigns can indict a defendant for the same crime. The federal and state governments can have overlapping criminal laws, so a criminal offender may be convicted in individual states and federal courts for exactly the same crime or for different crimes arising out of the same facts. However, in 2016, the Supreme Court held in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The dual sovereignty doctrine has been the subject of substantial scholarly criticism.

As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial." The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment. Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is impanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted.

Prosecution after acquittal
With two exceptions, the government is not permitted to appeal or retry the defendant once jeopardy attaches to a trial unless the case does not conclude. Conditions which constitute "conclusion" of a case include

 * After the entry of an acquittal, whether:
 * an acquittal by jury verdict
 * a directed verdict before the case is submitted to the jury,
 * a directed verdict after a deadlocked jury,
 * an appellate reversal for sufficiency (except by direct appeal to a higher appellate court), or
 * an "implied acquittal" via conviction of a lesser included offence.
 * re-litigating against the same defence a fact necessarily found by the jury in a prior acquittal, even if the jury hung on other counts. In such a situation, the government is barred by collateral estoppel.

In these cases, the trial is concluded and the prosecution is precluded from appealing or retrying the defendant over the offence to which they were acquitted.

This principle does not prevent the government from appealing a pre-trial motion to dismiss or other non-merits dismissal, or a directed verdict after a jury conviction, nor does it prevent the trial judge from entertaining a motion for reconsideration of a directed verdict, if the jurisdiction has so provided by rule or statute. Nor does it prevent the government from retrying the defendant after an appellate reversal other than for sufficiency, including habeas corpus, or "thirteenth juror" appellate reversals notwithstanding sufficiency on the principle that jeopardy has not "terminated".

The dual sovereignty doctrine allows a federal prosecution of an offence to proceed regardless of a previous state prosecution for that same offence and vice versa because "an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offence against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each". The doctrine is solidly entrenched in the law, but there has been a traditional reluctance in the federal executive branch to gratuitously wield the power it grants, due to public opinion being generally hostile to such action.

Exceptions
There are two exceptions to bans on retrying defendants. If a defendant bribed a judge into acquitting him or her, the defendant was not in jeopardy and can be retried. A member of the armed forces can be retried by court-martial in a military court, even if he or she has been previously acquitted by a civilian court. This exception was used to prosecute Timothy Hennis for the Eastburn family murders after his previous trial acquitted him.

An individual can be prosecuted by both the United States and an Indian tribe for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions; it was established by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lara that as the two are separate sovereigns, prosecuting a crime under both tribal and federal law does not attach double jeopardy.

Multiple punishment, including prosecution after conviction
In Blockburger v. United States (1932), the Supreme Court announced the following test: the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not. Blockburger is the default rule, unless the governing statute legislatively intends to depart; for example, Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) may be punished separately from its predicates, as can conspiracy.

The Blockburger test, originally developed in the multiple punishments context, is also the test for prosecution after conviction. In Grady v. Corbin (1990), the Court held that a double jeopardy violation could lie even where the Blockburger test was not satisfied, but Grady was later distinguished in United States v. Felix (1992), when the court reverted to the Blockburger test without completely dismissing the Grady interpretation. The court eventually overruled Grady in United States v. Dixon (1993).

Prosecution after mistrial
The rule for mistrials depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad faith", i.e. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial because the government specifically wanted a mistrial. If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial. The same standard governs mistrials granted sua sponte.

Retrials are not common, due to the legal expenses to the government. However, in the mid-1980s Georgia antique dealer James Arthur Williams was tried a record four times for murder over the shooting of Danny Hansford, and after three mistrials was finally acquitted on the grounds of self-defence. The case is recounted in the book Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, which was adapted into a film directed by Clint Eastwood (the movie combines the four trials into one).

Australia

 * In favour of the current rule prohibiting retrial after acquittal
 * NSW Public Defenders Office

 * Opposing the rule that prohibits retrial after acquittal
 * Questioning Double Jeopardy
 * DoubleJeopardyReform.Org

United Kingdom
Research and Notes produced for the UK Parliament, summarising the history of legal change, views and responses, and analyses:

 * (direct download link)
 * (direct download link)

United States

 * FindLaw Annotation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
 * Double Jeopardy Game on uscourts.gov (archived from the original on 2006-01-10)
 * Jack McCall (famous murder case involving a claim of double jeopardy)

Other countries

 * Law Reform Commission of Ireland Consultation Paper on Prosecution Appeals Brought on Indictment

title: Double jeopardy


text:
Disbarment

Disbarment, also known as striking off, is the removal of a lawyer from a bar association or the practice of law, thus revoking their law license or admission to practice law. Disbarment is usually a punishment for unethical or criminal conduct but may also be imposed for incompetence or incapacity. Procedures vary depending on the law society; temporary disbarment may be referred to as suspension.

Australia
In Australia, states regulate the Legal Profession under state law, despite many participating in a uniform scheme. Admission as a lawyer is the business of the admissions board and the Supreme Court. Disciplinary proceedings may be commenced by the Bar Association or the Law Society of which one is a member, or the board itself.

Germany
In Germany, a Berufsverbot is a ban on practicing a profession, which the government can issue to a lawyer for misconduct, Volksverhetzung or for serious mismanagement of personal finances.

In April 1933, the Nazi government issued a Berufsverbot forbidding the practice of law by Jews, Communists, and other political opponents, except for those protected by the Frontkämpferprivileg.

United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, the removal of the licence to practise of a barrister or Scottish advocate is called being "disbarred", whilst the removal of a solicitor from the rolls in England and Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland is called being "struck off".

Overview
Generally, disbarment is imposed as a sanction for conduct indicating that an attorney is not fit to practice law, willfully disregarding the interests of a client, commingling funds, or engaging in fraud which impedes the administration of justice. In some states, any lawyer who is convicted of a felony is automatically suspended pending further disciplinary proceedings, or, in New York, automatically disbarred. Automatic disbarment, although opposed by the American Bar Association, has been described as a convicted felon's just deserts.

In the United States legal system, disbarment is specific to regions; one can be disbarred from some courts, while still being a member of the bar in another jurisdiction. However, under the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which have been adopted in most states, disbarment in one state or court is grounds for disbarment in a jurisdiction which has adopted the Model Rules.

Disbarment is quite rare: in 2011, only 1,046 lawyers were disbarred. Instead, lawyers are usually sanctioned by their own clients through civil malpractice proceedings, or via fine, censure, suspension, or other punishments from the disciplinary boards. To be disbarred is considered a great embarrassment and shame, even if one no longer wishes to continue a career in law.

Because disbarment rules vary by area, different rules can apply depending on where a lawyer is disbarred. Notably, the majority of US states have no procedure for permanently disbarring a person. Depending on the jurisdiction, a lawyer may reapply to the bar immediately, after five to seven years, or be banned for life.

Notable U.S. disbarments
The 20th and the 21st centuries have seen one former U.S. president and one former U.S. vice president disbarred, and another former president suspended from one bar and caused to resign from another bar rather than face disbarment.

Former vice president Spiro Agnew, having pleaded no contest (which subjects a person to the same criminal penalties as a guilty plea, but is not an admission of guilt for a civil suit) to charges of bribery and tax evasion, was disbarred from Maryland, the state of which he had previously been governor.

Former president Richard Nixon was disbarred from New York in 1976 for obstruction of justice related to the Watergate scandal. He had attempted to resign from the New York bar, as he had done with California and the Supreme Court, but his resignation was not accepted as he would not acknowledge that he was unable to defend himself from the charges brought against him.

In 2001, following a 5-year suspension by the Arkansas bar, the United States Supreme Court suspended Bill Clinton, providing 40 days for him to contest disbarment. He resigned before the end of the 40 day period, thus avoiding disbarment.

Alger Hiss was disbarred for a felony conviction, but later became the first person reinstated to the bar in Massachusetts after disbarment.

In 2007, Mike Nifong, the District Attorney of Durham County, North Carolina who presided over the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, was disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct related to his handling of the case.

In April 2012, a three-member panel appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court voted unanimously to disbar Andrew Thomas, former County Attorney of Maricopa County, Arizona, and a former close confederate of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. According to the panel, Thomas "outrageously exploited power, flagrantly fostered fear, and disgracefully misused the law" while serving as Maricopa County Attorney. The panel found "clear and convincing evidence" that Thomas brought unfounded and malicious criminal and civil charges against political opponents, including four state judges and the state attorney general. "Were this a criminal case," the panel concluded, "we are confident that the evidence would establish this conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt."

Jack Thompson, the Florida lawyer noted for his activism against Howard Stern, video games, and rap music, was permanently disbarred for various charges of misconduct. The action was the result of several grievances claiming that Thompson had made defamatory, false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate his opponents. The order was made on September 25, 2008, effective October 25. However, Thompson attempted to appeal to the higher courts in order to avoid the penalty actually taking effect. Neither the US District court, nor the US Supreme Court would hear his appeal, rendering the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court final.

Ed Fagan, a New York lawyer who prominently represented Holocaust victims against Swiss banks, was disbarred in New York (in 2008) and New Jersey (in 2009) for failing to pay court fines and fees; and for misappropriating client and escrow trust funds.

F. Lee Bailey, noted criminal defense attorney, was disbarred by the state of Florida in 2001, with reciprocal disbarment in Massachusetts in 2002. The Florida disbarment was the result of his handling of stock in the DuBoc marijuana case. Bailey was found guilty of 7 counts of attorney misconduct by the Florida Supreme Court. Bailey had transferred a large portion of DuBoc's assets into his own accounts, using the interest gained on those assets to pay for personal expenses. In March 2005, Bailey filed to regain his law license in Massachusetts. The book Florida Pulp Nonfiction details the peculiar facts of the DuBoc case along with extended interviews with Bailey that include his own defense. Bailey is also best known for representing murder suspect O. J. Simpson in 1994.

Richard P. Liebowitz, a New York attorney focused on copyrights held by photographers, was disbarred by the state of New York in 2024, following suspension from the practice of law in the Southern District of New York. His disbarment followed what was described as a "pattern and practice of failing to comply with court orders and making false statements to the court," and multiple lawsuits wherein Liebowitz was sanctioned for misconduct.

Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in New York for false allegations about mass voter fraud and his participation in the January 6, 2021, Attack on the United States Capitol in an effort to subvert the 2020 Presidential Election.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Disbarment


text:
Dog tag

Dog tag is an informal but common term for a specific type of identification tag worn by military personnel. The tags' primary use is for the identification of casualties; they have information about the individual written on them, including identification and essential basic medical information such as blood type and history of inoculations. They often indicate a religious preference as well.

Dog tags are usually fabricated from a corrosion-resistant metal. They commonly contain two copies of the information, either in the form of a single tag that can be broken in half, or as two identical tags on the same chain. This purposeful duplication allows one tag, or half-tag, to be collected from an individual's dead body for notification, while the duplicate remains with the corpse if the conditions of battle prevent it from being immediately recovered. The term arose and became popular because of the tags' resemblance to animal registration tags.

History

The earliest mention of an identification tag for soldiers comes in Polyaenus (Stratagems 1.17) where the Spartans wrote their names on sticks tied to their left wrists. A type of dog tag ("signaculum") was given to the Roman legionary at the moment of enrollment. The legionary "signaculum" was a lead disk with a leather string, worn around the neck, with the name of the recruit and the indication of the legion of which the recruit was part. This procedure, together with enrollment in the list of recruits, was made at the beginning of a four-month probatory period ("probatio"). The recruit obtained the military status only after the oath of allegiance ("sacramentum") at the end of "probatio", meaning that from a legal point of view the "signaculum" was given to a subject who was no longer a civilian, but not yet in the military.

In more recent times, dog tags were provided to Chinese soldiers as early as the mid-19th century. During the Taiping revolt (1851–66), both the Imperialists (i.e., the Chinese Imperial Army regular servicemen) and those Taiping rebels wearing a uniform wore wooden dog tags at the belt, bearing the soldier's name, age, birthplace, unit, and date of enlistment.

American Civil War
During the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865, some soldiers pinned paper notes with their name and home address to the backs of their coats. Other soldiers stenciled identification on their knapsacks or scratched it in the soft lead backing of their army belt buckles. Manufacturers of identification badges recognized a market and began advertising in periodicals. Their pins were usually shaped to suggest a branch of service, and engraved with the soldier's name and unit. Machine-stamped tags were also made of brass or lead with a hole and usually had (on one side) an eagle or shield, and such phrases as "War for the Union" or "Liberty, Union, and Equality". The other side had the soldier's name and unit, and sometimes a list of battles in which he had participated.

Franco-Prussian War
On a volunteer basis Prussian soldiers had decided to wear identification tags in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. However, many rejected dog tags as a bad omen for their lives. So until eight months after the Battle of Königgrätz, with almost 8,900 Prussian casualties, only 429 of them could be identified. With the formation of the North German Confederation in 1867 Prussian military regulations became binding for the militaries of all North German member states. With the Prussian Instruktion über das Sanitätswesen der Armee im Felde (i.e., instruction on the medical corps organisation of the army afield) issued on 29 April 1869 identification tags (then called Erkennungsmarke; literally "recognition mark") were to be handed out to each soldier before deployment afield. The Prussian Army issued identification tags for its troops at the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. They were nicknamed Hundemarken (the German equivalent of "dog tags") and compared to a similar identification system instituted by the dog licence fee, adding tags to collars of those dogs whose owners paid the fee, in the Prussian capital city of Berlin at around the same time period.

World War I

The British Army introduced identity discs in place of identity cards in 1907, in the form of aluminium discs, typically made at regimental depots using machines similar to those common at fun fairs, the details being pressed into the thin metal one letter at a time.

Army Order 287 of September 1916 required the British Army provide all soldiers with two official tags, both made of vulcanised asbestos fibre (which were more comfortable to wear in hot climates) carrying identical details, again impressed one character at a time. The first tag, an octagonal green disc, was attached to a long cord around the neck. The second tag, a circular red disc, was threaded on a 6-inch cord suspended from the first tag. The first tag was intended to remain on the body for future identification, while the second tag could be taken to record the death.

British and Empire/Commonwealth forces (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) were issued essentially identical identification discs of basic pattern during the Great War, Second World War and Korea, though official identity discs were frequently supplemented by private-purchase items such as identity bracelets, particularly favoured by sailors who believed the official discs were unlikely to survive long immersion in water.

The U.S. Army first authorized identification tags in War Department General Order No. 204, dated December 20, 1906, which essentially prescribes the Kennedy identification tag:

"An aluminum identification tag, the size of a silver half dollar and of suitable thickness, stamped with the name, rank, company, regiment, or corps of the wearer, will be worn by each officer and enlisted man of the Army whenever the field kit is worn, the tag to be suspended from the neck, underneath the clothing, by a cord or thong passed through a small hole in the tag. It is prescribed as a part of the uniform and when not worn as directed herein will be habitually kept in the possession of the owner. The tag will be issued by the Quartermaster's Department gratuitously to enlisted men and at cost price to officers."

The U.S. Army changed regulations on July 6, 1916, so that all soldiers were issued two tags: one to stay with the body and the other to go to the person in charge of the burial for record-keeping purposes. In 1918, the U.S. Army adopted and allotted the service number system, and name and service numbers were ordered stamped on the identification tags.

World War II "notched" tags
There is a recurring myth about the notch situated in one end of the dog tags issued to United States Army personnel during World War II, and up until the Korean War era. It was rumored that the notch's purpose was that, if a soldier found one of his comrades on the battlefield, he could take one tag to the commanding officer and stick the other between the teeth of the soldier to ensure that the tag would remain with the body and be identified.

In reality, the notch was used with the Model 70 Addressograph Hand Identification Imprinting Machine (a pistol-type imprinter used primarily by the Medical Department during World War II). American dogtags of the 1930s through 1980s were produced using a Graphotype machine, in which characters are debossed into metal plates. Some tags are still debossed, using earlier equipment, and some are embossed (with raised letters) on computer-controlled equipment.

In the Graphotype process, commonly used commercially from the early 1900s through the 1980s, a debossing machine was used to stamp characters into metal plates; the plates could then be used to repetitively stamp such things as addresses onto paper in the same way that a typewriter functions, except that a single stroke of the printer could produce a block of text, rather than requiring each character to be printed individually. The debossing process creates durable, easily legible metal plates, well-suited for military identification tags, leading to adoption of the system by the American military. It was also realized that debossed tags can function the same way the original Graphotype plates do.

The Model 70 took advantage of this fact, and was intended to rapidly print all of the information from a soldier's dogtag directly onto medical and personnel forms, with a single squeeze of the trigger. However, this requires that the tag being inserted with the proper orientation (stamped characters facing down), and it was believed that battlefield stress could lead to errors. To force proper orientation of the tags, the tags are produced with a notch, and there is a locator tab inside the Model 70 which prevents the printer from operating if the tag is inserted with the notch in the wrong place (as it is if the tag is upside down).

This feature was not as useful in the field as had been hoped, however, due to adverse conditions such as weather, dirt and dust, water, etc. In addition, the Model 70 resembled a pistol, thus attracting the attention of snipers (who might assume that a man carrying a pistol was an officer). As a result, use of the Model 70 hand imprinter by field medics was rapidly abandoned (as were most of the Model 70s themselves), and eventually the specification that tags include the locator notch was removed from production orders. Existing stocks of tags were used until depleted, and in the 1960s it was not uncommon for a soldier to be issued one tag with the notch and one tag without. Notched tags are still in production, to satisfy the needs of hobbyists, film production, etc., while the Model 70 imprinter has become a rare collector's item.

It appears instructions that would confirm the notch's mythical use were issued at least unofficially by the Graves Registration Service during the Vietnam War to Army troops headed overseas.

Dog tags are traditionally part of the makeshift battlefield memorials soldiers created for their fallen comrades. The casualty's rifle with bayonet affixed is stood vertically atop the empty boots, with the helmet over the rifle's stock. The dog tags hang from the rifle's handle or trigger guard.

Medical condition identification
Some tags (along with similar items such as MedicAlert bracelets) are used also by civilians to identify their wearers and:
 * specify them as having health problems that may suddenly incapacitate their wearers and render them incapable of providing treatment guidance (as in the cases of heart problems, epilepsy, diabetic coma, accident or major trauma)
 * specify them as having health problems that may interact adversely with medical treatments, especially standard or "first-line" ones (as in the case of an allergy to common medications)
 * provide in case of emergency ("ICE") contact information
 * state a religious, moral, or other objection to artificial resuscitation, if a first responder attempts to administer such treatment when the wearer is non-responsive and thus unable to warn against doing so. A DNR signed by a physician is still required in some states.

Military personnel in some jurisdiction may wear a supplementary medical information tag.

Fashion
Dog tags have found their way into youth fashion as military chic. Originally worn as a part of a military uniform by youth wishing to present a tough or militaristic image, dog tags have since reached wider fashion circles. They may be inscribed with a person's details, beliefs or tastes, a favorite quote, or may bear the name or logo of a band or performer. The wearing of dog tags as a fashion accessory can be considered disrespectful by some military personnel.

Since the late 1990s, custom dog tags have been fashionable amongst musicians (particularly rappers), and as a marketing give-away item. Numerous companies offer customers the opportunity to create their own personalized dog tags with their own photos, logos, and text. Even high-end jewellers have featured gold and silver dog tags encrusted with diamonds and other jewels.

Activism
After the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, in which over 250 hostages were kidnapped from Israel to the Gaza Strip, dog tags became a symbol of the movement to free the hostages. It became common for people in Israel and elsewhere to publicly wear their own military dog tags or specially made dog tags to show solidarity with the hostages and their families, and to symbolize a call for the immediate release or rescue of the hostages. Phrases inscribed on the purpose-made dog tags include "bring them home now," "7.10.23," and "הלב שלנו שבוי בעזה" (English: "our hearts are captive in Gaza"). These inscribed dog tags are sold in markets and online shops, often as part of fundraisers to benefit the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, or other similar causes.

Austria
The Austrian Bundesheer used a single long, rectangular tag, with oval ends, stamped with blood group & Rh factor at the end, with ID number underneath. Two slots and a hole stamped beneath allows the tag to be broken in halves, and the long bottom portion has both the ID number and a series of holes which allows the tag to be inserted into a dosimeter. This has been replaced with a more conventional, wider and rounded rectangle which can still be halved, but lacks the dosimeter reading holes.

Australia

The Australian Defence Force issues soldiers two tags of different shapes, one octagonal and one circular, containing the following information:
 * AS (denoting Australia, previously both AU and AUST have been used)
 * PMKeyS/Service number
 * First initial
 * Last name
 * Religious abbreviation (e.g. RC – Roman Catholic, NREL – No religion)
 * Blood group

The information is printed exactly the same on both discs. In the event of a casualty, the circular tag is removed from the body.

Belgium
Belgian Forces identity tags are, like the Canadian and Norwegian, designed to be broken in two in case of fatality; the lower half is returned to the Belgian Defence staff, while the upper half remains on the body. The tags contain the following information:

 * Upper half:
 * Belgisch Leger (Belgian Army) and Date of Birth in DD/MM/YYYY format.
 * Surname with the addition of the first letter of given name.
 * Service number and blood group with RH factor and optionally religion.
 * Lower half: identical.
 * Example:
 * Belgisch Leger 01/01/1991
 * Surname J
 * 1234567 O+    KATH

Canada

Canadian Forces identity discs (abbreviated "ID discs") are designed to be broken in two in the case of fatality; the lower half is returned to National Defence Headquarters with the member's personal documents, while the upper half remains on the body. The tags contain the following information:
 * Upper half:
 * Service Number (SN)
 * Initials and surname
 * Religion (or "NRE" if none) and blood group with RH factor
 * The legend "CDN FORCES CDN" (or for foreign nationals, the name of the country the individual represents)
 * The text "DO NOT REMOVE / NE PAS ENLEVER" on the reverse
 * Lower half: identical, except no blood group or RH factor and the reverse is blank.

Before the Service Number was introduced in the 1990s, military personnel were identified on the ID discs (as well as other documents) by their social insurance number.

China
The People's Liberation Army issues two long, rectangular tags. All information is stamped in Simplified Chinese:

 * Full name
 * Gender
 * Date of birth
 * RIC number
 * PLA's ID number
 * Blood type
 * Branch

PLA is introducing a two-dimensional matrix code on the second tag, the matrix code contains a link to the official database. This allows the inquirer get more details about the military personnel.

Colombia
The Ejército Nacional de Colombia uses long, rectangular metal tags with oval ends tags stamped with the following information:

 * Family Name
 * First Name
 * Military ID Number
 * Blood Type
 * Branch of Service

Duplicate tags are issued. Often, tags are issued with a prayer inscribed on the reverse.

Cyprus
In Cyprus, identification tags include the following information:

 * Surname
 * First name
 * Service number (E.g., 11111/00/00B, where the first five digits are the ID, the second two are the year the soldier turned 18 years old, the last two digits are the year the soldier enlisted, and the letter is the enlistment group, either A or B)
 * Blood Group

Denmark

The military of Denmark use dog tags made from small, rectangular metal plates. The tag is designed to be broken into two pieces each with the following information stamped onto it:

 * Personal identification number
 * Surname
 * First name

Additionally, the right hand side of each half-tag is engraved. Starting in 1985, the individual's service number (which is the same as the social security number) is included on the tag. In case the individual dies, the lower half-tag is supposed to be collected, while the other will remain with the corpse. In the army, navy, and air force but not in the national guard, the individual's blood type is indicated on the lower half-tag only, since this information becomes irrelevant if the individual dies. In 2009, Danish dog tags were discontinued for conscripts.

East Germany

The Nationale Volksarmee used a tag nearly identical to that used by both the Wehrmacht and the West German Bundeswehr. The oval aluminum tag was stamped "DDR" (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) above the personal ID number; this information was repeated on the bottom half, which was intended to be broken off in case of death. Oddly, the tag was not worn (but would have been in case of war), but required to be kept in a plastic sleeve in the back of the WDA ("Wehrdienstausweis") identity booklet.

Ecuador
The Placas de identificación de campaña consists of two long, rectangular steel or aluminum tags with rounded corners and a single hole punched in one end. It is suspended by a US-type ball chain, with a shorter chain for the second tag. The information on the tag is:

 * Family Name & First Name
 * Identification Number
 * Blood Group, plus "RH" and "+" or "-"

Estonia
Estonian dog tags are designed to be broken in two. The dog tag is a metallic rounded rectangle suspended by a ball chain. Information consists of four fields:

 * National identification number
 * Nationality
 * Blood Group
 * Religion

Example:
 * 39305231234
 * EST
 * A(II) Rh Pos (+)
 * NO

Finland

In the Finnish Defence Forces, "tunnuslevy" or WWII term "tuntolevy" (Finnish for "Identification plate") is made of stainless steel and designed to be broken in two; however, the only text on it is the personal identification number and the letters "FI" or "SF" in older models, which stands for Suomi Finland, within a tower stamped atop of the upper half.

France
In WWI and WWII, French forces used a small oval-shaped disc of metal designed to be broken in half, worn at the wrist.

Now, France issues either a metallic rounded rectangle (army) or a pair of disc (air force, navy),

designed to be broken in half, bearing family name & first name above the ID number.

French army tags also include blood type,"T" for Tetanus vaccine and "OFF" only for officers.

Picture show last model, "plaque d'identité modèle 1995".

Germany
See above for former East Germany.

German Bundeswehr ID tags are an oval-shaped disc designed to be broken in half. They are made of stainless steel, 50.3 mm height and 80 mm width. The two sides contain different information which are mirrored upside-down on the lower half of the ID tag. They feature the following information on segmented and numbered fields:

On the front:

 * Field 1: blank (provided for Gender but never used)
 * Field 2: DEU (for Deutschland) (GE (for Germany) only on older ID tags)
 * Field 3: Religious preference ("K" or "RK" for Roman Catholic, "E" or "EV" for Protestant, "O" for Christian Orthodox, "ISL" for Islamic, "JD" for Jewish, blank if no preference)
 * Field 4: Personenkennziffer (service number: birth date in DDMMYY format, dash, capitalized first letter of last name, dash, and five-digit number based on soldier's home military administrative district, number of persons with the mentioned last name initial and same birthday, and an error-checking number but without dashes), ex. 101281-S-455(-)6(-)8

On the back:

 * Field 5: Blood group (A, AB, B, 0)
 * Field 6: Rh factor (Rh+ or Rh-)
 * Field 7: Vaccination status ("T82" for Tetanus and year of basic immunization)
 * Fields 8–10: blank

Bundesamt für Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung of 2009-12-21 specifies shape, materials and characteristics for four parts:

 * Erkennungsmarke (identification tag) stainless steel ("Edelstahl")
 * Erkennungsmarke, nicht magnetisierbar (identification tag, non-magnetizable) for personnel working for special tasks, non-magnetic stainless steel
 * Sanitätswarnmarke, short Warnmarke (health warn tag) aluminium, anodized red, carried only if necessary with a second chain depending from the lower half of the ID tag
 * Halskette (necklace) – Kugelkette DIN 5280, stainless steel – 2 parts: one long for neck and ID, one short for warn tag to ID tag.

The ID tag is landscape-oval, breakable in two halves with 4–8 manual bends. On the backside each half is 0.2 mm deep marked with "DEU" for Deutschland, the non-magnetic type on both halves and both sides with "NM".

The metal sheet is 0.7 mm thick, material codes X5CrNi1810 or 1.4301, weighs about 16 g. NM-variant shall consist of 1.4311 or 1.4401. Sharp edges have to be smoothed, then the plate electropolished. Mechanical deburring and ball polishing is allowed.

The letters stamped in for the person must stay readable after a glow test for 10 minutes in air at 1200 °C.

The ball chain is of X5CrNi1810, diameter of ball is 3.5 mm, that of the wire 1.5 mm. Closure is of 1.4301, stainless steel, too. The long chain is 680 + 30 mm long, the short one 145 + 7 mm. Breaking force of the chain including the closure must reach 100 N, after 10 min glow at 1200 °C in air at least 10 N.

Greece
In Greece, identification tags include the following information:
 * Surname
 * First name
 * Service number (where date of birth is included as "class")
 * Blood Group

Hungary

The Hungarian army dog tag is made out of steel, forming a 25×35 mm tag designed to split diagonally. Both sides contain the same information: the soldier's personal identity code, blood group and the word HUNGARIA. Some may not have the blood group on them. These are only issued to soldiers who are serving outside of the country. If the soldier should die, one side is removed and kept for the army's official records, while the other side is left attached to the body.

Iraq
The Saddam-era Iraqi Army used a single, long, rectangular metal tag with oval ends, inscribed (usually by hand) with Name and Number or Unit, and occasionally Blood Type.

Israel

Dog tags of the Israel Defense Forces are designed to be broken in two. The information appears in three lines (twice):
 * Army identification number ("mispar ishi", literally "personal number". A seven-digit number that is different from the nine-digit identification number for citizens).
 * Last name
 * First Name
 * Blood Type (ABO group – in some years)

Recruits are issued with 2 Dogtags (4 halves total), one remains whole and worn on a necklace, and the second is broken into its halves and placed in each military boot for the purpose of Identifying dead soldiers (IDF Military Boots contain pouches on their inner sides at the 1/3 calf height, the pouches have holes corresponding in size and placement to those on the discs, allowing for fastening, often via small cable ties).

Originally the IDF issued two circular aluminum tags (1948 – late 1950s) stamped in three lines with serial number, family name, and first name. The tags were threaded together through a single hole onto a cord worn around the neck.

Italy

Rectangular piece, 35x45 mm, designed to be broken in two. Includes soldier's first and last name, coded date and place of birth, identification number, religious affiliation, and blood group.

Japan
Japan follows a similar system to the US Army for its Japan Self-Defense Forces personnel, and the appearance of the tags is similar, although laser etched. The exact information order is as follows.

 * Japan Ground Self-Defense Force
 * JAPAN GSDF
 * First name, last name
 * Identification number
 * Blood type
 * Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force
 * First name, last name
 * Identification number
 * JAPAN MSDF
 * Blood type
 * Japan Air Self-Defense Force
 * First name, last name
 * Identification number
 * JAPAN ASDF
 * Blood type

Malaysia
Malaysian Armed Forces have two identical oval tags with this information:
 * NRIC number (The last digit is an odd number for a male soldier, and an even number for a female soldier.)
 * Service number
 * Full name
 * Blood type
 * Religion
 * Branch (e.g., TLDM)

If more information needed, another two oval wrist tags are provided. The term wrist tags can be used to refer to the bracelet-like wristwatch. The additional tags only need to be worn on the wrist, with the main tags still on the neck. All personnel are allowed to attach a small religious pendant or locket; this makes a quick identifiable reference for their funeral services.

Mexico
The Mexican Army uses two long identity tags, very similar to the ones used in the United States Army. They are rectangular metal tags with oval ends, embossed with name, serial number, and blood type, plus Rh factor.

Netherlands
Dutch military identity tags, like the Canadian and Norwegian ones, are designed to be broken in two in case of a fatality; the lower end is returned to Dutch Defence Headquarters, while the upper half remains on the body.

The tags contain the following information:

 * Upper half:
 * Name and family name
 * Service number
 * Nationality and religion
 * Blood group with RH factor
 * Lower half: identical.

There is a difference in the Army and Air Force service number and the Navy service number:
 * The Army and Air Force service number is made up of the date of birth in YY.MM.DD. format, for example 83.01.15, and a three-digit number, such as 123.
 * The Navy service number is made up out of random five- or six-digit numbers.

Norway
Norwegian dog tags are designed to be broken in two like the Canadian and the Dutch version:

 * The top half contains the nationality, the eleven-digit birth number and the blood type.
 * The bottom half contains the nationality and birth number and has a hole so the broken-off half can be hung on a ring.

Poland

The first dog tags were issued in Poland following the order of the General Staff of December 12, 1920. The earliest design (dubbed kapala in Polish, more properly called "kapsel legitymacyjny" – meaning "identification cap") consisted of a tin-made 30×50 mm rectangular frame and a rectangular cap fitting into the frame. Soldiers' details were filled in a small ID card placed inside the frame, as well as on the inside of the frame itself. The dog tag was similar to the tags used by the Austro-Hungarian Army during World War I. In case the soldier died, the frame was left with his body, while the lid was returned to his unit together with a note on his death. The ID card was handed over to the chaplain or the rabbi.

In 1928, a new type of dog tag was proposed by gen. bryg. Stanisław Rouppert, Poland's representative at the International Red Cross. It was slightly modified and adopted in 1931 under the name of Nieśmiertelnik wz. 1931 (lit. "Immortalizer, pattern 1931"). The new design consisted of an oval piece of metal (ideally steel, but in most cases aluminum alloy was used), roughly 40 by 50 millimeters. There were two rectangular holes in the middle to allow for easier breaking of the into halves. The halves contained the same set of data – name, religion, place of birth, year of birth – and were identical, except the upper half had two holes for a string or twine to go through, and the lower had one hole.

The 2008 pattern (wz. 2008) specifies two Stadium-shaped 0.8mm-thick 51×27mm tags with a 3mm hole, made of heat-resistant steel, engraved with:

 * first name
 * surname
 * PESEL (the national ID number)
 * a blank line
 * blood type

parallel to the long axis, and the name of Polish Army "Siły Zbrojne RP" and the Polish coat of arms on the rounded end opposite the hole.

The 2024 pattern (wz. 2024) returns to a single 40×50mm ellipsis with 2+1 holes, of stainless steel, 1mm thick, laser-engraved, indented across the short axis with two rectangular holes to break apart, with each half containing

 * first name
 * surname
 * second line of double-barrelled surname
 * PESEL

and

 * "Siły zbrojne RP"
 * religion (on user request)
 * blood type
 * serial number

on the obverse. The halves are flipped with respect to each other, such that when unbroken, both sides contain all information.

Rhodesia
The former Republic of Rhodesia used two WW2 British-style compressed asbestos fiber tags, a No. 1 octagonal (grey) tag and a No. 2 circular (red) tag, stamped with identical information. The red tag was supposedly fireproof and the grey tag rotproof. The following information was stamped on the tags: Number, Name, Initials, & Religion; Blood Type was stamped on reverse. The air force and BSAP often stamped their service on the reverse side above the blood group.

Russia
The Russian Armed Forces use oval metal tags, similar to the dog tags of the Soviet Army. Each tag contains the title and the individual's alphanumeric number, as shown on the photo.

Singapore
The Singapore Armed Forces-issued dog tags are inscribed (not embossed) with up to four items:
 * NRIC number
 * Blood type
 * Religion
 * Drug allergies (if any; inscribed on the reverse)

The dog tags consist of two metal pieces, one oval with two holes and one round with one hole. A synthetic lanyard is threaded through both holes in the oval piece and tied around the wearer's neck. The round piece is tied to the main loop on a shorter loop.

South Africa
The South African National Defence Force use two long, rectangular stainless steel tags with oval ends, stamped with :
 * Serial number
 * Name and initials
 * Religion
 * Blood type.

South Korea
The South Korean army issues two long, rectangular tags with oval ends, stamped (in Korean lettering). The tags are worn on the neck with a ball chain. The tags contain the information listed below:
 * Branch (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines)
 * Service Number; the first two digits state the starting year of service and the other eight digits state the specific unit of the person.
 * Name
 * Blood group followed by Rh factor

South Vietnam
The South Vietnamese Army and the South Vietnamese Navy used two American-style dog tags. Some tags added religion on the back, e.g., Phật Giáo for Buddhist. They were stamped or inscribed with:
 * Name
 * SQ (Số Quân, i.e., Service number) a 2-digit year number, followed by a military serial number
 * LM (loại máu, i.e., Blood Group, rH factor)

Soviet Union
During World War II, the Red Army did not issue metal dog tags to its troops. They were issued small black Bakelite cylinders containing a slip of paper with a soldier's particulars written on it. These do not hold up as well as metal dog tags. After World War II, the Soviet Army used oval metal tags, similar to today's dog tags of the Russian Armed forces. Each tag contains the title and the individual's alphanumeric number.

Spain
Issues a single metal oval, worn vertically, stamped "ESPAÑA" above and below the 3-slot horizontal break line. It is stamped in 4 lines with:

 * 1st line – Religion
 * 2nd line – left side = blood group, right side = any medical allergies (SI or NO)
 * 3rd line – military service (ET, EA ...)
 * 4th (longest) line = DNI military number.

Sweden
Swedish identification tags are designed to be able to break apart. The information on them was prior to 2010 and are as follows:

 * Personal identity number (twice, once in the upper part and once below)
 * Surname
 * first and middle name(s)
 * Residence at birth
 * Blood type (only on some)
 * County code
 * Issue year

Swedish dog tags issued to Armed Forces personnel after 2010 are, for personal security reasons, only marked with a personal identity number.

During the Cold War, dog tags were issued to everyone, often soon after birth, since the threat of total war also meant the risk of severe civilian casualties. However, in 2010, the Government decided that the dog tags were not needed anymore.

Switzerland
Swiss Armed Forces ID tag is an oval shaped non reflective plaque, containing the following information:

 * Social insurance number
 * Surname
 * First name
 * Date of birth in DD.MM.YY format

On the back side the letters CH (standing for Confoederatio Helvetica) are engraved next to a Swiss cross.

United Kingdom

The British Armed Forces currently use two circular non-reflecting stainless steel tags, referred to as "ID Disks", engraved with the following 'Big 5' details:

 * 1) Blood group
 * 2) Service Number
 * 3) Last name (Surname)
 * 4) Initials
 * 5) Religion (Abbreviated, e.g.; R.C – Roman Catholic)
 * 6) Branch ("RAF" – only for RAF members)

The discs are suspended from one long chain (24 inches long) and one short chain (4.5 inches long)

During World War One and Two, service personnel were issued pressed fibre identity disks, one green octagonal shaped disc, and a red round disc (some army units issued a second red round disc to be attached to the service respirator). The identity disks were hand stamped with the surname, initials, service number and religion of the holder and if in the Royal Air Force, the initials RAF. The disks were worn around the neck on a 38" length of cotton cord, this was often replaced by the wearer with a leather bootlace. One tag was suspended below the main tag.

The fibre identity disks in the RAF were still in use in 1999.

From 1960 these were replaced with stainless steel ID tags on a green nylon cord, two circular and one oval. The oval was withdrawn around 1990.

United States

Tags are properly known as identification tags; the term "dog tags" has never been used in regulations.

The U.S. Armed Forces typically carry two identical oval dog tags containing:

 * U.S. Air Force (Pre-2019)
 * Last name
 * First name and middle initial
 * Social Security number (Or DoD ID number post-2012), followed by "AF" indicating branch of service
 * Blood Group
 * Religion

 * U.S. Air Force (Modern)
 * Last name
 * First name and middle initial
 * DoD ID number without hyphens
 * Blood group and Rh factor
 * Religious Preference

 * U.S. Marine Corps
 * Last name
 * First and middle initials and suffix; blood group
 * EDIPI number
 * Branch ("USMC"); Gas mask size (S – small, M – medium, L – large)
 * Religious preference, or medical allergy if red medical tag

 * U.S. Navy (Historic, the U.S. Navy no longer issues dog tags)
 * Last name, first name, middle initial
 * Social Security number with no dashes or spaces followed immediately by "USN", space, blood group
 * Religion

 * U.S. Army
 * Last name
 * First name and middle initial
 * Dept of Defense ID number (replaced Social Security number in November 2015)
 * Blood type
 * Religion

 * U.S. Coast Guard (Historic, the U.S. Coast Guard no longer issues dog tags)
 * Last name, first name, middle initial
 * Social Security number, no dashes or spaces, followed immediately by "USCG"
 * Blood group
 * Religion

Religious designation
During World War II, an American dog tag could indicate only one of three religions through the inclusion of one letter: "P" for Protestant, "C" for Catholic, or "H" for Jewish (from the word "Hebrew"), or (according to at least one source) "NO" to indicate no religious preference. Army regulations (606–5) soon included X and Y in addition to P, C, and H: the X indicating any religion not included in the first three, and the Y indicating either no religion or a choice not to list religion. By the time of the Vietnam War, some IDs spelled out the broad religious choices such as PROTESTANT and CATHOLIC, rather than using initials, and also began to show individual denominations such as "METHODIST" or "BAPTIST". Tags did vary by service, however, such as the use of "CATH" instead of "CATHOLIC" on some Navy tags. For those with no religious affiliation and those who chose not to list an affiliation, either the space for religion was left blank or the words "NO PREFERENCE" or "NO RELIGIOUS PREF" (or the abbreviation "NO PREF") were included.

Although American dog tags currently include the recipient's religion as a way of ensuring that religious needs will be met, some personnel have them reissued without religious affiliation listed—or keep two sets, one with the designation and one without—out of fear that identification as a member of a particular religion could increase the danger to their welfare or their lives if they fell into enemy hands. Some Jewish personnel avoided flying over German lines during WWII with ID tags that indicated their religion, and some Jewish personnel avoid the religious designation today out of concern that they could be captured by extremists who are anti-Semitic. Additionally, when American troops were first sent to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War there were allegations that some U.S. military authorities were pressuring Jewish military personnel to avoid listing their religions on their ID tags.

title: Dog tag


text:
Drum

The drum is a member of the percussion group of musical instruments. In the Hornbostel-Sachs classification system, it is a membranophone. Drums consist of at least one membrane, called a drumhead or drum skin, that is stretched over a shell and struck, either directly with the player's hands, or with a percussion mallet, to produce sound. There is usually a resonant head on the underside of the drum. Other techniques have been used to cause drums to make sound, such as the thumb roll. Drums are the world's oldest and most ubiquitous musical instruments, and the basic design has remained virtually unchanged for thousands of years.

Drums may be played individually, with the player using a single drum, and some drums such as the djembe are almost always played in this way. Others are normally played in a set of two or more, all played by one player, such as bongo drums and timpani. A number of different drums together with cymbals form the basic modern drum kit.

Uses
Drums are usually played by striking with the hand, a beater attached to a pedal, or with one or two sticks with or without padding. A wide variety of sticks are used, including wooden sticks and sticks with soft beaters of felt on the end. In jazz, some drummers use brushes for a smoother, quieter sound. In many traditional cultures, drums have a symbolic function and are used in religious ceremonies. Drums are often used in music therapy, especially hand drums, because of their tactile nature and easy use by a wide variety of people. In the 2000s, drums have also been used as a way to engage in aerobic exercise and is called cardio drumming.

In popular music and jazz, "drums" usually refers to a drum kit or a set of drums (with some cymbals, or in the case of harder rock music genres, many cymbals), and "drummer" to the person who plays them.

Drums acquired even divine status in places such as Burundi, where the karyenda was a symbol of the power of the king.

Construction
The shell almost always has a circular opening over which the drumhead is stretched, but the shape of the remainder of the shell varies widely. In the Western musical tradition, the most usual shape is a cylinder, although timpani, for example, use bowl-shaped shells. Other shapes include a frame design (tar, Bodhrán), truncated cones (bongo drums, Ashiko), goblet shaped (djembe), and joined truncated cones (talking drum).

A drum contains cylindrical shells can be open at one end (as is the case with timbales), or can have two drum heads, one head on each end. Single-headed drums typically consist of a skin stretched over an enclosed space, or over one of the ends of a hollow vessel. Drums with two heads covering both ends of a cylindrical shell often have a small hole somewhat halfway between the two heads; the shell forms a resonating chamber for the resulting sound. Exceptions include the African slit drum, also known as a log drum as it is made from a hollowed-out tree trunk, and the Caribbean steel drum, made from a metal barrel. Drums with two heads can also have a set of wires, called snares, held across the bottom head, top head, or both heads, hence the name snare drum. On some drums with two heads, a hole or bass reflex port may be cut or installed onto one head, as with some 2010s era bass drums in rock music.

On modern band and orchestral drums, the drumhead is placed over the opening of the drum, which in turn is held onto the shell by a "counterhoop" (or "rim"), which is then held by means of a number of tuning screws called "tension rods" that screw into lugs placed evenly around the circumference. The head's tension can be adjusted by loosening or tightening the rods. Many such drums have six to ten tension rods. The sound of a drum depends on many variables—including shape, shell size and thickness, shell materials, counterhoop material, drumhead material, drumhead tension, drum position, location, and striking velocity and angle.

Prior to the invention of tension rods, drum skins were attached and tuned by rope systems—as on the Djembe—or pegs and ropes such as on Ewe drums. These methods are rarely used today, though sometimes appear on regimental marching band snare drums. The head of a talking drum, for example, can be temporarily tightened by squeezing the ropes that connect the top and bottom heads. Similarly, the tabla is tuned by hammering a disc held in place around the drum by ropes stretching from the top to bottom head. Orchestral timpani can be quickly tuned to precise pitches by using a foot pedal.

Sounds

Several factors determine the sound a drum produces, including the type, shape and construction of the drum shell, the type of drum heads it has, and the tension of these drumheads. Different drum sounds have different uses in music. For example, the modern Tom-tom drum. A jazz drummer may want drums that are high pitched, resonant and quiet whereas a rock drummer may prefer drums that are loud, dry and low-pitched.

The drum head has the most effect on how a drum sounds. Each type of drum head serves its own musical purpose and has its own unique sound. Double-ply drumheads dampen high frequency harmonics because they are heavier and they are suited to heavy playing. Drum heads with a white, textured coating on them muffle the overtones of the drum head slightly, producing a less diverse pitch. Drum heads with central silver or black dots tend to muffle the overtones even more, while drum heads with perimeter sound rings mostly eliminate overtones. Some jazz drummers avoid using thick drum heads, preferring single ply drum heads or drum heads with no muffling. Rock drummers often prefer the thicker or coated drum heads.

The second biggest factor that affects drum sound is head tension against the shell. When the hoop is placed around the drum head and shell and tightened down with tension rods, the tension of the head can be adjusted. When the tension is increased, the amplitude of the sound is reduced and the frequency is increased, making the pitch higher and the volume lower.

The type of shell also affects the sound of a drum. Because the vibrations resonate in the shell of the drum, the shell can be used to increase the volume and to manipulate the type of sound produced. The larger the diameter of the shell, the lower the pitch. The larger the depth of the drum, the louder the volume. Shell thickness also determines the volume of drums. Thicker shells produce louder drums. Mahogany raises the frequency of low pitches and keeps higher frequencies at about the same speed. When choosing a set of shells, a jazz drummer may want smaller maple shells, while a rock drummer may want larger birch shells.

History

Drums made with alligator skins have been found in Neolithic cultures located in China, dating to a period of 5500–2350 BC. In literary records, drums manifested shamanistic characteristics and were often used in ritual ceremonies.

The bronze Dong Son drum was fabricated by the Bronze Age Dong Son culture of northern Vietnam. They include the ornate Ngoc Lu drum.

Animal drumming
Macaque monkeys drum objects in a rhythmic way to show social dominance and this has been shown to be processed in a similar way in their brains to vocalizations, suggesting an evolutionary origin to drumming as part of social communication. Other primates including gorillas make drumming sounds by chest beating or hand clapping, and rodents such as kangaroo rats also make similar sounds using their paws on the ground.

Talking drums
Drums are used not only for their musical qualities, but also as a means of communication over great distances. The talking drums of Africa are used to imitate the tone patterns of spoken language. Throughout Sri Lankan history drums have been used for communication between the state and the community, and Sri Lankan drums have a history stretching back over 2500 years.

Drums in art
Drumming may be a purposeful expression of emotion for entertainment, spiritualism and communication. Many cultures practice drumming as a spiritual or religious passage and interpret drummed rhythm similarly to spoken language or prayer. Drumming has developed over millennia to be a powerful art form. Drumming is commonly viewed as the root of music and is sometimes performed as a kinesthetic dance. As a discipline, drumming concentrates on training the body to punctuate, convey and interpret musical rhythmic intention to an audience and to the performer.

Military uses
Chinese troops used tàigǔ drums to motivate troops, to help set a marching pace, and to call out orders or announcements. For example, during a war between Qi and Lu in 684 BC, the effect of drum on soldiers' morale is employed to change the result of a major battle. Fife-and-drum corps of Swiss mercenary foot soldiers also used drums. They used an early version of the snare drum carried over the player's right shoulder, suspended by a strap (typically played with one hand using traditional grip). It is to this instrument that the English word "drum" was first used. Similarly, during the English Civil War rope-tension drums would be carried by junior officers as a means to relay commands from senior officers over the noise of battle. These were also hung over the shoulder of the drummer and typically played with two drum sticks. Different regiments and companies would have distinctive and unique drum beats only they recognized. In the mid-19th century, the Scottish military started incorporating pipe bands into their Highland regiments.

During pre-Columbian warfare, Aztec nations were known to have used drums to send signals to the battling warriors. The Nahuatl word for drum is roughly translated as huehuetl.

The Rig Veda, one of the oldest religious scriptures in the world, contains several references to the use of the Dundhubi (war drum). Arya tribes charged into battle to the beating of the war drum and chanting of a hymn that appears in Book VI of the Rig Veda and also the Atharva Veda. The dundhuhi was considered sacred and to capture one in battle would signal defeat of the enemy.

Types

 * Aburukuwa
 * Ashiko
 * Atumpan
 * Bara
 * Bass drum
 * Batá
 * Bedug
 * Bodhrán
 * Bongo drums
 * Bougarabou
 * Buk
 * Cajón
 * Candombe drums
 * Chalice drum
 * Chenda
 * Cocktail drum
 * Conga
 * Crowdy-crawn
 * Darbuka
 * Damphu
 * Davul
 * Dayereh
 * Dhak
 * Dhimay
 * Dhol
 * Dholak
 * Djembe
 * Dong Son drum
 * Doumbek
 * Dunun
 * Ewe drums
 * Fontomfrom
 * Frame drum
 * Goblet drum
 * Hand drum
 * Idakka
 * Ilimba drum
 * Karyenda
 * Kendang
 * Kpanlogo
 * Lambeg drum
 * Log drum
 * Madal
 * Mridangam
 * Pahu
 * Pakhavaj
 * Repinique
 * Side drum (marching snare drum)
 * Slit drum
 * Snare drum
 * Surdo
 * Tabor
 * Tamborim
 * Tambourine
 * Taiko
 * Tabla
 * Talking drum
 * Tassa (Tasha drum)
 * Tapan
 * Tar
 * Tavil
 * Tenor drum
 * Timbales
 * Timpani
 * Tombak
 * Tom-tom drum
 * Tongue drum
 * Zabumba

title: Drum