Can a judge vacate a conviction and then reinstate it?
<p>In the TV series Waco:Aftermath, a jury convicts defendants of some crimes but acquits them of some others. Their lawyer argues that the convictions don’t make sense and the judge agrees to vacate them.</p>
<p>Right when the defendants are about to be released, the judge reinstates their convictions and sends them to prison. This is seemingly based on a random change of heart, and there is no new evidence/developments.</p>
<p>This is supposedly based on a true story, but can a judge really do that? Isn’t it a violation of double jeopardy?</p>

<p>Courts have inherent jurisdiction to reconsider/recall their own decisions. This rarely happens (especially if the decision has already been &quot;sealed&quot; i.e. issued in writing) but still possible. The principle of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finality_(law)" rel="noreferrer">finality</a> only applies to parties asking courts to reconsider; it does not constrain courts themselves.</p>
<p>So, in this example, &quot;the judge agrees to vacate them&quot; but that decision hasn't been sealed yet. The judge can easily just change their mind (although, again, it rarely happens).</p>
<p>No double jeopardy applies because it is still the same trial.</p>

united-states law-in-fiction double-jeopardy