Jennings and Armington

Running Head JENNINGS AND ARMINGTON 1 Marlene Clarke Kaplan University LS 311-02 line of business line Law Professor Toni Starcher September twelfth 2012 JENNINGS AND ARMINGTON 2Armington, while robbing a drugstore, shot and earnestly injured Jennings, a drugstore clerk. Armington was later convicted in a criminal attempt of armed robbery, assault and battery. Jennings later brought a genteel tort suit once against Armington for damages. Armington contended that he could non be tried again for the very(prenominal) crime, as that would constitute effigy chance, which is prohibited in the one-fifth Amendment to the constitution. In this situation, Armington is incorrect about the double jeopardy law and he should accept province for what he did.The Fifth Amendment offers certain rampart to the defendant but the law must(prenominal) maintain fairness and consistency. According to the text, the Fifth Amendment does not allow a soulfulness to be tried twice for the same crime. In other words, if a someone faces trial for a crime and is implant not guilty and later on new evidence is discovered to refer the person to the crime, they cannot stand trial a second time. Double jeopardy does not prohibit damages entitled to the dupe in a civil suit.A civil tort suit occurs when someone has been stick out so the law allows them to seek compensation. base on the scenario, Jennings deserves compensation because of the damages she sustained, suffered and endured. Since Jennings had a serious injury because of the intentional manage committed by Armington, she should be open to receive compensation for her injuries. References * Miller, L. R. & Jentz, G. A. (2010). Fundamentals of business law Summarized cases (8th Edition). Ohio Cengage Learning