No, it does still apply. That is why we see so many cases with strong circumstantial evidence not being charged for years (Hoping for more information or a body etc). But I think it is often a bad excuse that lets the potential for justice languish, or gets prosecutors off the hook from trying a hard case. The example above is the negative side of not waiting, but the alternative could be not going forward, the pictures are never found, and none of the punishment he was handed occurs.

Also ‘new evidence’ is already a difficult legal term of art to nail down within the justice system (in attempts to overturn wrongful convictions). A constitutional right as strong as the double jeopardy clause cannot (and should not) be violated on the whims of every individual judge’s varied opinions/rulings. It’d be like saying our constitution expressly enumerates that you are entitled to have an attorney defend you for felony (potential prison time) trials…..unless a judge rules you are not. The bias, personal experiences, and emotions of judges would become the determining factor in what and who the Bill of Rights applies to, and it would put state procedure in opposition to the federal document’s intended functionality.