Verified answer

Double jeopardy refers to restarting the whole process again once all legal proceedings are finalised. It does not stop a case being appealed to a higher court, as that is considered a continuation of the initial proceedings.

If it stopped appeals, then no case could be appealed at all (every trial results in some kind of verdict, except mistrials).

To use your example- if one party in the Brown vs Board of Education case was unhappy with the way the initial case went, they could appeal that to a higher court, as is their right. To do that, they need to demonstrate what went wrong with the first trial. This can continue all the way up to the Supreme Court. Once that's settled though, it's final.

So for instance, Brown was allowed to appeal their case to a higher court. Consider though, if the appeal had been denied, or the Court had ruled against them. In that case, Brown would not have been allowed to just sue the board again, as that would be a violation of double jeopardy.

So, in short, appeals are not generally covered under double jeopardy, as they are a review/continuation of the existing case, not a new one.

The one exception to that is criminal cases- if the court returns a "not guilty" verdict, the government cannot appeal that to a higher court (although if you commit fraud upon the court, double jeopardy doesn't protect you from a retrial if it's discovered later).

Double jeopardy applies to criminal law trials and means you can't be tried and punished twice for the same crime. This is different to appeals to higher courts, however the prosecutions ability to appeal is usually limited to appeals on sentence. A convicted person may appeal to a higher court if they believe the original judge made a wrong decision regarding a question of law or the running of the trial, but can't appeal just because they don't like the jury's decision. If a judge in a higher court decides that the original trial was unfair, they may quash the conviction and order a new trial (This doesn't violate double jeopardy because the original trial is effectively being cancelled out as if it never happened.)

the same applies to civil cases, they can appeal decisions to higher courts, but not just to sue a person again for the same thing twice, they need to take issue with some aspect of the original court case and the higher court will decide whether the original decision should be reversed or not.

In summary, don't think of an appeal to a higher court as a new trial, but more as a review of an original trial. Double jeopardy protects people against being convicted, sent to jail, and then arrested and convicted of the same crime again once they are released. (which would be ridiculous, right?)

The supreme court doesn't try people, they put laws on trial. So let's say Bob downloads a cartoon drawing which some pervlcive to be kid porn. Bob goes on trial and is found guilty. Bob appeals the case to the supreme court where the law on animated porn is tested. Not bob. Now if the scotus decides thy drawings are not real kids bobs original conviction is overturned.

I would assume the state cannot retry for a crime. Civil suits can be contested by either party to appellate courts, up to the Supreme Court. But I guess you wanted someone who really knew what they were talking about to answer.

Double jeopardy applies to criminal cases. They don't have to be so serious as murder, but they aren't civil cases like Brown, either.

in very simple terms, double jeopardy means you cannot be tried a second time for the same offense, regardless of what they may find out later.