Some clarification is in order, I think. I said that"double jeopardy" is a unique concept. I should have said that "protection against double jeopardy" is unique to our common law (shared with England). I have since learned, however, that the concept has spread throughout the European Union, and even further in modern times, giving weight to bigswede's assertion. However, I also note that
Quote
In many European countries, the prosecution may appeal an acquittal to a higher court (similar to the provisions of Canadian law); this is not counted as double jeopardy, but as a continuation of the same trial. This is allowed by the European Convention on Human Rights (note the word finally in the above quotation).
Wikipedia.

On a different point, I was mistaken, but correct for a different reason. When the Hammonds were poaching the deer, I assumed they were hunting them. I was wrong. Apparently their only goal was to kill them, and that they didn't do well, as the testimony indicated some of the deer ran off, wounded, and were not tracked. Not only does this violate every tenet of ethical "hunting", it would also have made the forensic analysis bigswede desired impossible. In the 139 acres involved in that fire, the deer could have been scattered across miles of terrain.
Quote
Seriously wounded animals seldom run more than a quarter mile before lying down. Once they have bedded, blood pumping through the muscles during flight returns to injured organs, promoting blood loss and death. However, if jumped before significantly weakened, game may run for miles before bedding again.
How to Track and Find Wounded Whitetail Deer and Other Game - Field and Stream.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich