Final answer:
Under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, to obtain triple damages a plaintiff must prove fraudulent misrepresentation. This is different from the actual malice standard required in defamation cases involving public officials. Double jeopardy prevents someone from being prosecuted in state court for a crime they were acquitted of in federal court.
Step-by-step explanation:
The subject of this question is Law, specifically relating to the standards needed to be met for a plaintiff to receive triple damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). To answer the student's question: To obtain triple damages under the DTPA, a plaintiff must prove fraudulent misrepresentation. This involves showing that the guilty party intentionally misled the plaintiff, which caused them harm.
In comparison, the actual malice standard referenced from constitutional guarantees relates to defamation cases involving public officials. To win such cases, the official must prove that false statements made about them were done with knowledge of their falsity, or with a reckless lack of concern for their truth. This relates to freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial.
Regarding the double jeopardy rule, it forbids option a, prosecuting someone in a state court for a criminal act they had been acquitted of in a federal court. The terms ‘actual malice' and ‘double jeopardy' are essential in understanding aspects of Law where specific intent or prior judgments impact the outcomes of legal cases.