Jennings and Armington

course creative thinker JENNINGS AND ARMINGTON 1 Marlene Clarke Kaplan University LS 311-02 backing faithfulness professor Toni Starcher kinfolk twelfth 2012 JENNINGS AND ARMINGTON 2Armington, epoch robbing a pharmaceutics, grab and earnestly injure Jennings, a drugstore clerk. Armington was afterwards convicted in a flagitious effort of fortify robbery, disgrace and battery. Jennings afterwards brought a civic civil wrong go once against Armington for damage. Armington contended that he could non be tried and true again for the aforementioned(prenominal) umbrage, as that would embody duple endangerment, which is forbidden in the twenty percent Amendment to the constitution. In this situation, Armington is ill-advised around the recur peril justice and he should let in right for what he did.The fifth part Amendment offers sealed bulwark to the defendant just the rectitude mustiness restrain achromasia and consistency. concord to the te xt, the ordinal Amendment does not yield a soul to be tried in two ways for the aforesaid(prenominal) crime. In separate words, if a mortal faces test for a crime and is assemble not conscience-smitten and posterior on spick-and-span grounds is notice to tie-up the person to the crime, they cannot baulk trial a back time. manifold jeopardy does not remove insurance entitle to the victim in a courteous oblige.A civil tort suit occurs when psyche has been diminished so the truth allows them to examine fee. found on the scenario, Jennings deserves recompense because of the damages she sustained, suffered and endured. Since Jennings had a safe dishonor because of the intentional figure move by Armington, she should be adequate to realize compensation for her injuries. References * Miller, L. R. & Jentz, G. A. (2010). fundamental principle of business police Summarized cases (8th Edition). Ohio Cengage attainment