I believe that double jeopardy should only be allowed in isolated cases where new evidence is found that more or less proves guilt, like this one. I really wouldn't see any problem with a retrial and conviction of OJ Simpson, especially considering he basically confessed to doing it in his book.
I believe that if there was rock solid evidence, such as DNA evidence or at least three credible witnesses, then there should be another trial. Some claim that this could easily lead to abuse, but if the legal requirements for doing so were set in stone, then I don't see a problem with it. If the evidence shows beyond a shadow that of a doubt that the person is guilty, then we owe it to the victims to see that the person responsible pays.
Evidence found in case of OJ Simpson: Double jeopardy should only exist in certain circumstances. Legal matters not being very simple and easy to decide the clause of double jeopardy according to some lawyers seems to be applicable on a case by case basis. Therefore, additional charges can be brought by the government following acquittal.
If we said double jeopardy is only allowed in certain circumstances, ex. Murder, the likelihood of that spreading to other crimes is through the roof. I rather have OJ remain "not guilty" than have the possibility of double jeopardy being abused and harming people who otherwise would've been left alone after the trial ended.
Prosecutors would love to indict a defendant over and over because they hate to lose. Too bad. You get one bite of the cherry and then you're done Mr prosecutor. Prosecutors are by nature vile, selfish, self promoting, unprincipled and a pack of liars. You want to give these degenerates a license to practice their unprincipled and self aggrandizing ways? The concept of double jeopardy is a defense against the immorality of all prosecutors, since all Prosecutors are degenerates and will indict their own mothers to advance their careers. They are also notoriously sore losers.
The law of double jeopardy was created for a reason. A person has to have some protections, so that the government cannot harass them after their trial. If a jury has found a person not guilty, I think that nothing short of a confession should be able to change the verdict.
The laws in place to provide protection against double jeopardy charges are designed to protect individuals from constant legal filings and court proceedings once they have been found innocent. To muddy those waters with circumstance or scenarios would inhibit the protection provided and make endless legal action too much of a reality.
The principle of double jeopardy, or not being tried twice for the same crime, should apply in all cases. Although there are cases, such as O.J. Simpson, where additional evidence was apparently found, that may cast doubt on the concept, there is an overriding objective. The government should not be allowed to keep trying an individual for the same crime since the power can be abused.
The state already has more resources to mount a prosecution than most of us have to mount a defense. However, if new evidence turns up (like this knife) and it clearly incriminates him, it seems only logical that the state should be able to charge him with perjury and obstruction of justice. That said, I am not a lawyer and the law is not always as logical as I would expect. If the evidence proves that he did it, I would like to see him punished for it.