united-states pardon double-jeopardy
If a pardon is specifically referencing a crime a person has been convicted of, can an individual sue him for a different crime?
<blockquote>
<p>Pardons, except for amnesties, are typically given after a person has
been convicted of a crime, and they specifically reference that crime.
In this respect, President Trump’s pardons of Scooter Libby, Paul
Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Roger Stone are typical. After
asserting that the recipient is given a “Full and Unconditional
Pardon,” they go on to specify the statutes each was charged with
violating and describe in detail the punishments given. Their pardons
extend to the named crimes and no other. The pardon given to Michael
Flynn is somewhat different. After referencing the charge of lying to
federal investigators for which Flynn was convicted, the president
goes on to pardon Flynn not just for this crime but also for “any and
all possible offenses” within the jurisdiction of the Special
Counsel’s investigating authority or relating in any manner to the
Special Counsel’s investigation [of Russia’s attempted interference in
the 2016 presidential election and links to the Trump campaign].</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/01/17/presidential-pardons-settled-law-unsettled-issues-and-a-downside-for-trump/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/01/17/presidential-pardons-settled-law-unsettled-issues-and-a-downside-for-trump/</a></p>
<p>If a pardon is specifically referencing a crime a person has been convicted of, can an individual or a government sue the pardoned person for a different crime committed at the same time? Let's say a person committed crime A, B, C and D, but he was only convicted for crime A and B, then after a pardon was handed, can people still sue that person for crime C and D even though the crimes were committed by the same act? It seems like it's the case since Michael Flynn's pardon was particularly architectured in a way to avoid this.</p>

<h2>The pardon does what it says it does</h2>
<p>Typically, the pardon is given for which the accused has already been convicted. Therefore, the principle of double jeopardy applies: the person has already been tried on the facts and all the charges that were or <em>should have been</em> brought have been determined. This, of course, doesn't prevent charges from being laid for other crimes allegedly committed at other times over different events.</p>
<p>In the case where a person is pardoned more broadly, as in the Michael Flynn example, in addition to the double jeopardy limitation, a prosecutor is prevented from charging anything that falls within the scope of the pardon.</p>
<p><strong>Pardons do not constrain civil suits</strong></p>
<p>If you are pardoned of say, murder, that does not prevent the victim's dependants from bringing a wrongful death suit, just as being found not guilty wouldn't. These are different cases with different parties and the pardon has no effect.</p>
<p>Similarly, a Federal pardon does not prevent a State (or another country) from laying charges over the same matter and vice-versa.</p>

<p>No.</p>
<p>If the same event is chargeable as multiple crimes, then they all have to be charged.</p>
<p>It's why prosecutors sometimes elect to only charge the most egregious offense at trial.  So that the jury knows that if they don't convict someone of murder 1 (for example), then the same person cannot later be tried for murder 2.  But usually a person would be charged with all the crimes committed during the event.</p>
<p>The double jeopardy attaches to the event for which a person has been tried rather than attaching to the crime with which the person has been charged.</p>
