3-2 has a serious, though rather novel, mis-application of the rule of Double Jeopardy.

Under Double Jeopardy, a person, once found not guilty of a crime can't be tried for that crime again. Being accused at someone else's trial and not having it proven, or being convicted of another crime, even if it happens to have taken place at the same time, doesn't bring DJ into play. You need to actually be tried for the crime in question. Although, the latter CAN be used as evidence, so

It is properly invoked in the end, though.

---

Right you are ^^

Actually, people can't get charged for a crime in another trial, as I am led to believe. There must be a separate trial for that charge against that individual after the trial at which they gave decisive evidence of their guilt for another crime.

I suppose that's why as much as there are people who support the justice system, there are just as many who repulse it. They feel that the court is tricky and sly, because they've been promised that their confession wouldn't be used against them (but they usually neglect to remember that it is only for that one trial that they have immunity) yet they are then charged for their crime...