Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#Supreme Court rules acquitted man can be retried
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Dänk 42Ø
May 25, 2012, 1:00:24 PM5/25/12
to
I strongly disagree with this ruling and condemn the Justices who voted
for it. I am surprised, however, that the two Obama nominees, Sonia
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Chairman Obama and the Democrats
are as much a threat to our constitution and freedom as Emperor Bush and
the Republicans, so I expect this seeming defense of the Fifth Amendment
right against double jeopardy will be an anomaly among the rulings they
make during their terms on the Court.
_________________________________________________________
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/blueford-v-state-of-arkansas/
Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
May 24, 2012
Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from retrying
Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder after the
jury in Blueford’s original trial told the trial court that it had voted
unanimously against those charges but was deadlocked on the manslaughter
charge against him and eventually failed to reach a verdict, causing the
court to declare a mistrial.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May
24, 2012. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined
by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
for it. I am surprised, however, that the two Obama nominees, Sonia
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Chairman Obama and the Democrats
are as much a threat to our constitution and freedom as Emperor Bush and
the Republicans, so I expect this seeming defense of the Fifth Amendment
right against double jeopardy will be an anomaly among the rulings they
make during their terms on the Court.
_________________________________________________________
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/blueford-v-state-of-arkansas/
Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
May 24, 2012
Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from retrying
Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder after the
jury in Blueford’s original trial told the trial court that it had voted
unanimously against those charges but was deadlocked on the manslaughter
charge against him and eventually failed to reach a verdict, causing the
court to declare a mistrial.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May
24, 2012. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined
by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
May 25, 2012, 1:05:52 PM5/25/12
to
"Dänk 42Ø" <da...@purpleurkle.org> wrote in message
news:ffadnQHv-Yw1JyLS...@earthlink.com...
Sorry, but a mistrial has never been construed as a trial. As such there
is NO trial by definition therefore there can be no double jeopardy for
trying the case again.
--
Sir Gregory
news:ffadnQHv-Yw1JyLS...@earthlink.com...
is NO trial by definition therefore there can be no double jeopardy for
trying the case again.
--
Sir Gregory
3006 Dead
May 25, 2012, 2:10:54 PM5/25/12
to
as you present evidence to the contrary.
The Court should have ruled that he could be retried on the manslaughter
charge, but not on either of the murder charges. Acquittal is acquittal.
Padraigh ProAmerica
May 25, 2012, 2:19:43 PM5/25/12
to
If the ENTIRE trial is tossed by a mistrial, then jeopardy has not been
attatched.
The justices had it right.
--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed-
and hence clamorous to be led to safety- by menacing it with an endless
series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. "--
H.L. Mencken
attatched.
The justices had it right.
--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed-
and hence clamorous to be led to safety- by menacing it with an endless
series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. "--
H.L. Mencken
Jeff Strickland
May 25, 2012, 2:47:05 PM5/25/12
to
"D�nk 42�" <da...@purpleurkle.org> wrote in message
news:ffadnQHv-Yw1JyLS...@earthlink.com...
>I strongly disagree with this ruling and condemn the Justices who voted
> for it. I am surprised, however, that the two Obama nominees, Sonia
> Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Chairman Obama and the Democrats
> are as much a threat to our constitution and freedom as Emperor Bush and
> the Republicans, so I expect this seeming defense of the Fifth Amendment
> right against double jeopardy will be an anomaly among the rulings they
> make during their terms on the Court.
> _________________________________________________________
>
> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/blueford-v-state-of-arkansas/
>
> Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
> May 24, 2012
>
> Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from retrying
> Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder after the
> jury in Blueford’s original trial told the trial court that it had voted
> for it. I am surprised, however, that the two Obama nominees, Sonia
> Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Chairman Obama and the Democrats
> are as much a threat to our constitution and freedom as Emperor Bush and
> the Republicans, so I expect this seeming defense of the Fifth Amendment
> right against double jeopardy will be an anomaly among the rulings they
> make during their terms on the Court.
> _________________________________________________________
>
> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/blueford-v-state-of-arkansas/
>
> Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
> May 24, 2012
>
> Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from retrying
> Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder after the
> unanimously against those charges but was deadlocked on the manslaughter
> charge against him and eventually failed to reach a verdict, causing the
> court to declare a mistrial.
>
> Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May
> 24, 2012. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined
> by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
Was he acquitted, found not guilty, or did the jury hang? It appears that
> charge against him and eventually failed to reach a verdict, causing the
> court to declare a mistrial.
>
> Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May
> 24, 2012. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined
> by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
the jury hung, and the prosecuter frequently elects to retry cases where the
jury hangs.
Double Jeopardy comes when the jury finds against the prosecutor and rules
in favor of the defendant. When the jury says, "we can't make up our mind,"
that is not an acquittal, it is a hang. The prosecutor goes back to the
huddle and says, "we can present this better," or not, and decides to retry
based on the discussions in the huddle. Prosecutors do not always go to
retrial after a hung jury, but they can, and often do. An acquital says the
jury came to the decision that the defendant is not guilty, and a conviction
means the prosecutor proved his/her case against the defendant. A mistrial
means nothing. The prosecutor can walk away, or refile charges and try
again.
I'm open to the suggestion that I am wrong, but I gotta say from the
information presented here, a retrial after a hung jury is not double
jeopardy.
Jeff Strickland
May 25, 2012, 2:49:45 PM5/25/12
to
"Dänk 42Ø" <da...@purpleurkle.org> wrote in message
news:ffadnQHv-Yw1JyLS...@earthlink.com...
>I strongly disagree with this ruling and condemn the Justices who voted
> for it. I am surprised, however, that the two Obama nominees, Sonia
> Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Chairman Obama and the Democrats
> are as much a threat to our constitution and freedom as Emperor Bush and
> the Republicans, so I expect this seeming defense of the Fifth Amendment
> right against double jeopardy will be an anomaly among the rulings they
> make during their terms on the Court.
> _________________________________________________________
>
> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/blueford-v-state-of-arkansas/
>
> Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
> May 24, 2012
>
> Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from retrying
> Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder after the
> jury in Blueford’s original trial told the trial court that it had voted
> for it. I am surprised, however, that the two Obama nominees, Sonia
> Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Chairman Obama and the Democrats
> are as much a threat to our constitution and freedom as Emperor Bush and
> the Republicans, so I expect this seeming defense of the Fifth Amendment
> right against double jeopardy will be an anomaly among the rulings they
> make during their terms on the Court.
> _________________________________________________________
>
> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/blueford-v-state-of-arkansas/
>
> Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
> May 24, 2012
>
> Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from retrying
> Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder after the
> unanimously against those charges but was deadlocked on the manslaughter
> charge against him and eventually failed to reach a verdict, causing the
> court to declare a mistrial.
>
> Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May
> 24, 2012. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined
> by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
The prosecutor can retry the manslaughter charges, but the jury said murder
> charge against him and eventually failed to reach a verdict, causing the
> court to declare a mistrial.
>
> Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May
> 24, 2012. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined
> by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
and capital murder did not happen. Manslaughter maybe, but not murder.
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
May 25, 2012, 3:22:45 PM5/25/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jpok2i$u6t$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Dänk 42Ø" <da...@purpleurkle.org> wrote in message
You are correct. A mistrial is like a misfire of a gun. If the round
misfires the gun does not fire. A mistrial is like that. It's a non-trial
so it cannot be double jeopardy.
What appalls me is how three liberals justices can't see plain and simple.
--
Sir Gregory
news:jpok2i$u6t$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Dänk 42Ø" <da...@purpleurkle.org> wrote in message
misfires the gun does not fire. A mistrial is like that. It's a non-trial
so it cannot be double jeopardy.
What appalls me is how three liberals justices can't see plain and simple.
--
Sir Gregory
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
May 25, 2012, 3:24:11 PM5/25/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jpok7i$v45$1...@dont-email.me...
again. A mistrial is a trial that never happened in the eyes of the law.
--
Sir Gregory
Jeff Strickland
May 25, 2012, 4:05:36 PM5/25/12
to
" Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq." <greghall@home.fåke> wrote in message
news:5llbpt....@news.alt.net...
and hung on the lesser charge of manslaughter. I'm no lawyer, but if the
question was, since the greater charges were acquitted, then only the lesser
charge can be retried. You are saying that the mistrial on the lesser charge
can cause the acquitted charges to be tried again. There are (as I
understand it) three sets of charges, two were acquitted and one hung.
The argument I buy into is that since the greater charges were decided in
favor of the defendent, then they cannot be tried again. The jury said the
capital offense was not proven, and that the lesser offense was only proven
to some percentage of the jury, but not all of it or enough of it to
convict.
I suppose what I really need to do is read the entire argument and not base
anything on the partial set of facts that I'm understanding here. Given what
I know at this moment, I'm not alarmed that the defendant has to face the
manslaughter again. But I agree that a mistrial does not create double
jeopardy during the retrial.
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
May 25, 2012, 4:21:46 PM5/25/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jpoolo$t04$1...@dont-email.me...
trial ended in a mistrial. A mistrial means the (entire) trial never
happened in the eyes of the law. No trial = no acquittal on one aspect of
it. Period! The point you seem to be missing is you can't break up ONE
trial into two trials. If there is a mistrial declared then the entire
proceeding are null and void. This is one of the pitfalls of an over
aggressive prosecution thinking they can kill two birds with one stone.
Sometimes it ends up being a bullet to their foot.
--
Sir Gregory
Padraigh ProAmerica
May 25, 2012, 4:35:39 PM5/25/12
to
You're missing the point.
IN the eyes f the law, this trial never happened; anything the jury
decided is moot. Anything.
IN the eyes f the law, this trial never happened; anything the jury
decided is moot. Anything.
3006 Dead
May 25, 2012, 4:40:05 PM5/25/12
to
crime? That doesn't seem right.
Jeff Strickland
May 25, 2012, 5:06:13 PM5/25/12
to
" Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq." <greghall@home.fåke> wrote in message
acquittal of capital murder and murder 1 (or murder 2, I don't know which),
but could not decide on the manslaughter charge.
So, the defendant faced a charge of "you did a really bad thing", "a bad
thing," and "a thing that you shouldn't have done." The jury came back
unanimously against conviction on the really bad thing and the bad thing --
the defendant did not do what was charged -- and jung on the charge of doing
something you shouldn't have done. The punishments for these three charges
are death, life in prison, and a slap on the pee-pee. These are facts.
Simplified, but facts just the same.
So, because the jury could not decide on the charge of doing something you
shouldn't have done, the charges of the really bad thing and the bad thing
can be tried again, EVEN THOUGH the jury acquited on them? The jury said the
defendant was innocent of the death charge, the life in prison charge, and
could not decide if the slap on the pee-pee was even warranted. So, the jury
can't decide that the defendant needs a slap on the pee-pee, so he has to
fight the death and life in prison charges again? I'm not sure I like that.
Try again on the slap if you must, the jury gave a pass on the death and
life in prison charges.
I gotta agree with Sotomayor and Ginsberg on this one. I say they retry
manslaughter and get a decision, but they already screwed up the capital
cases and should leave them alone.
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
May 25, 2012, 5:12:05 PM5/25/12
to
"3006 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jpoqn3$9s7$1...@dont-email.me...
From the OP:
Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
May 24, 2012
Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from retrying
Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder after the
jury in Blueford’s original trial told the trial court that it had voted
mistrial. It's as if no trial ever happened in the first place so it's not
double jeopardy because, in order for it to be double jeopardy, there must
have been a trial (single jeopardy so to speak). A mistrial is not
considered a trial from a legal standpoint.
Your question as to any contradictory nature of the charges is a non
sequitur. If any such charges are indeed contradictory, one or the other
would have to be proven contradictory to the judge before one or the other
could be dismissed by the court. On matters of proceedure the judge rules.
Respecting matters of guilt or innocence the jury rules.
--
Sir Gregory
news:jpoqn3$9s7$1...@dont-email.me...
Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
May 24, 2012
Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from retrying
Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder after the
unanimously against those charges but was deadlocked on the manslaughter
charge against him and eventually failed to reach a verdict, causing the
court to declare a mistrial.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May
24, 2012. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined
by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
You see, the crux of the matter is the fact that it was declared a
charge against him and eventually failed to reach a verdict, causing the
court to declare a mistrial.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May
24, 2012. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined
by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
mistrial. It's as if no trial ever happened in the first place so it's not
double jeopardy because, in order for it to be double jeopardy, there must
have been a trial (single jeopardy so to speak). A mistrial is not
considered a trial from a legal standpoint.
Your question as to any contradictory nature of the charges is a non
sequitur. If any such charges are indeed contradictory, one or the other
would have to be proven contradictory to the judge before one or the other
could be dismissed by the court. On matters of proceedure the judge rules.
Respecting matters of guilt or innocence the jury rules.
--
Sir Gregory
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
May 25, 2012, 5:37:57 PM5/25/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jpos7c$ki6$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> " Sir � Gregory � Hall, Esq." <greghall@home.f�ke> wrote in message
> news:5llf5r....@news.alt.net...
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jpoolo$t04$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> " Sir � Gregory � Hall, Esq." <greghall@home.f�ke> wrote in message
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jpoolo$t04$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> news:5llbpt....@news.alt.net...
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:jpok7i$v45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> "D�nk 42�" <da...@purpleurkle.org> wrote in message
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:jpok7i$v45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
clarity. The clarity you lack is the FACT that a mistrial was declared. A
mistrial means EVERYTHING covered in the trial is null and void. It's as
if the trial never happened. No trial means there cannot be double
jeopardy for in order for anything to be double there needs be a single.
In this case there was not a single.
So, stop using that which happened during a mistrial as if it occurred
during a trial. That is your error. And that is the error of the three
liberal justices who dissented.
--
Sir Gregory
3006 Dead
May 25, 2012, 7:35:56 PM5/25/12
to
for it, you have one set of charges indicating that it was willfull, pre-
meditated, and deliberate, and a third charge that it was none of those
things. Therein lies the contradiction, and leaves me with the distinct
feeling that the DA was kitchensinking it, hoping something would stick.
Reading between the lines, the jury concluded that the first degree and
second degree charges were utter nonsense, and were divided over whether
even manslaughter was involved. It's like saying "He didn't rob the
bank, and he didn't shoot the security guard, but we're not sure if he
was doing 25 in a school zone, which is why the cop pulled him over" It
pretty much ensures that any prosecutor can grind down the accused when
he has an impossibly weak case simply by adding a minor, but plausible
accusation to the charges.
Jeff Strickland
May 25, 2012, 9:06:08 PM5/25/12
to
" Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq." <greghall@home.fåke> wrote in message
>> " Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq." <greghall@home.fåke> wrote in message
>> news:5llf5r....@news.alt.net...
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jpoolo$t04$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> " Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq." <greghall@home.fåke> wrote in message
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jpoolo$t04$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> news:5llbpt....@news.alt.net...
>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jpok7i$v45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dänk 42Ø" <da...@purpleurkle.org> wrote in message
>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jpok7i$v45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
with you and the fact that the jury acquitted on two of three charges, and
hung on the third charge, then take it up with the OP.
But, yes, there was a mistrial, and there is no double jeapordy on a
retrial.
Jeff Strickland
May 25, 2012, 9:10:05 PM5/25/12
to
news:jpp50q$ppg$6...@dont-email.me...
and there might not have been a manslaughter but we could not decide."
> Reading between the lines, the jury concluded that the first degree and
> second degree charges were utter nonsense, and were divided over whether
> even manslaughter was involved. It's like saying "He didn't rob the
> bank, and he didn't shoot the security guard, but we're not sure if he
> was doing 25 in a school zone, which is why the cop pulled him over" It
> pretty much ensures that any prosecutor can grind down the accused when
> he has an impossibly weak case simply by adding a minor, but plausible
> accusation to the charges.
In your example, the 25 in a school zone is the only undecided issue, and
the prosecutor can bring that charge again, or give it a rest.
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:12:05 -0400, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq. wrote:
>
>> "3006 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
>> news:jpoqn3$9s7$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> "3006 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
>> news:jpoqn3$9s7$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:21:46 -0400, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:jpoolo$t04$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> " Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq." <greghall@home.fåke> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:jpoolo$t04$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> news:5llbpt....@news.alt.net...
>>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:jpok7i$v45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dänk 42Ø" <da...@purpleurkle.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:jpok7i$v45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news:ffadnQHv-Yw1JyLS...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>I strongly disagree with this ruling and condemn the Justices who
>>>>>>>>voted
>>>>>>>> for it. I am surprised, however, that the two Obama nominees,
>>>>>>>> Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Chairman Obama and
>>>>>>>> the Democrats are as much a threat to our constitution and freedom
>>>>>>>> as Emperor Bush and the Republicans, so I expect this seeming
>>>>>>>> defense of the Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy will
>>>>>>>> be an anomaly among the rulings they make during their terms on
>>>>>>>> the Court.
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/blueford-v-state-of-
>>> arkansas/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
>>>>>>>> May 24, 2012
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from
>>>>>>>> retrying Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree
>>>>>>>> murder after the jury in Blueford’s original trial told the
>>>>>>>>I strongly disagree with this ruling and condemn the Justices who
>>>>>>>>voted
>>>>>>>> for it. I am surprised, however, that the two Obama nominees,
>>>>>>>> Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Chairman Obama and
>>>>>>>> the Democrats are as much a threat to our constitution and freedom
>>>>>>>> as Emperor Bush and the Republicans, so I expect this seeming
>>>>>>>> defense of the Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy will
>>>>>>>> be an anomaly among the rulings they make during their terms on
>>>>>>>> the Court.
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/blueford-v-state-of-
>>> arkansas/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
>>>>>>>> May 24, 2012
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from
>>>>>>>> retrying Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree
>> You see, the crux of the matter is the fact that it was declared a
>> mistrial. It's as if no trial ever happened in the first place so it's
>> not double jeopardy because, in order for it to be double jeopardy,
>> there must have been a trial (single jeopardy so to speak). A mistrial
>> is not considered a trial from a legal standpoint.
>>
>> Your question as to any contradictory nature of the charges is a non
>> sequitur. If any such charges are indeed contradictory, one or the other
>> would have to be proven contradictory to the judge before one or the
>> other could be dismissed by the court. On matters of proceedure the
>> judge rules.
>> Respecting matters of guilt or innocence the jury rules.
>
> Assuming that there had been a death, and the defendant was being tried
> for it, you have one set of charges indicating that it was willfull, pre-
> meditated, and deliberate, and a third charge that it was none of those
> things. Therein lies the contradiction, and leaves me with the distinct
> feeling that the DA was kitchensinking it, hoping something would stick.
>
That is my take as well. By the report, the jury said, "there was no murder,
>> mistrial. It's as if no trial ever happened in the first place so it's
>> not double jeopardy because, in order for it to be double jeopardy,
>> there must have been a trial (single jeopardy so to speak). A mistrial
>> is not considered a trial from a legal standpoint.
>>
>> Your question as to any contradictory nature of the charges is a non
>> sequitur. If any such charges are indeed contradictory, one or the other
>> would have to be proven contradictory to the judge before one or the
>> other could be dismissed by the court. On matters of proceedure the
>> judge rules.
>> Respecting matters of guilt or innocence the jury rules.
>
> Assuming that there had been a death, and the defendant was being tried
> for it, you have one set of charges indicating that it was willfull, pre-
> meditated, and deliberate, and a third charge that it was none of those
> things. Therein lies the contradiction, and leaves me with the distinct
> feeling that the DA was kitchensinking it, hoping something would stick.
>
and there might not have been a manslaughter but we could not decide."
> Reading between the lines, the jury concluded that the first degree and
> second degree charges were utter nonsense, and were divided over whether
> even manslaughter was involved. It's like saying "He didn't rob the
> bank, and he didn't shoot the security guard, but we're not sure if he
> was doing 25 in a school zone, which is why the cop pulled him over" It
> pretty much ensures that any prosecutor can grind down the accused when
> he has an impossibly weak case simply by adding a minor, but plausible
> accusation to the charges.
the prosecutor can bring that charge again, or give it a rest.
Dänk 42Ø
May 26, 2012, 12:36:30 AM5/26/12
to
official verdict on the murder charge. Under American law, a mistrial is
declared on whatever charges the jury could not agree upon -- but this
requires that the jury present its verdict, or lack thereof, to the
court. Since the unanimous vote to acquit on the murder charge was never
formally read into the court record, the judge's decision to declare a
mistrial on ALL the charges seems justified.
Dänk 42Ø
May 26, 2012, 12:42:58 AM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 23:35:56 +0000, 3006 Dead quacked:
reading your post. Normally I would say that great minds think alike,
but this is not possible in this case. I might accuse you of hacking
Usenet to forge the timestamp on your post, but I'm not that insane.
Thus, I must concede a rare agreement with you.
> Reading between the lines, the jury concluded that the first degree and
> second degree charges were utter nonsense, and were divided over whether
> even manslaughter was involved. It's like saying "He didn't rob the
> bank, and he didn't shoot the security guard, but we're not sure if he
> was doing 25 in a school zone, which is why the cop pulled him over" It
> pretty much ensures that any prosecutor can grind down the accused when
> he has an impossibly weak case simply by adding a minor, but plausible
> accusation to the charges.
Wow! I just presented the same scenario a few minutes ago before even
> second degree charges were utter nonsense, and were divided over whether
> even manslaughter was involved. It's like saying "He didn't rob the
> bank, and he didn't shoot the security guard, but we're not sure if he
> was doing 25 in a school zone, which is why the cop pulled him over" It
> pretty much ensures that any prosecutor can grind down the accused when
> he has an impossibly weak case simply by adding a minor, but plausible
> accusation to the charges.
reading your post. Normally I would say that great minds think alike,
but this is not possible in this case. I might accuse you of hacking
Usenet to forge the timestamp on your post, but I'm not that insane.
Thus, I must concede a rare agreement with you.
Dänk 42Ø
May 26, 2012, 1:10:16 AM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:37:57 -0400, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq. wrote:
> You are one confused individual. You are confused because you lack
> clarity. The clarity you lack is the FACT that a mistrial was declared.
> A mistrial means EVERYTHING covered in the trial is null and void. It's
> as if the trial never happened. No trial means there cannot be double
> jeopardy for in order for anything to be double there needs be a single.
> In this case there was not a single.
>
> So, stop using that which happened during a mistrial as if it occurred
> during a trial. That is your error. And that is the error of the three
> liberal justices who dissented.
Nobody disagrees that a mistrial means no valid verdict. The issue here
> You are one confused individual. You are confused because you lack
> clarity. The clarity you lack is the FACT that a mistrial was declared.
> A mistrial means EVERYTHING covered in the trial is null and void. It's
> as if the trial never happened. No trial means there cannot be double
> jeopardy for in order for anything to be double there needs be a single.
> In this case there was not a single.
>
> So, stop using that which happened during a mistrial as if it occurred
> during a trial. That is your error. And that is the error of the three
> liberal justices who dissented.
is whether a jury verdict can be overturned by declaring a mistrial. No
mistrial would have been declared had the jury voted to convict, but a
mistrial was declared after the jury voted to acquit (but never formally
delivered the verdict to the court). This may be technically legal, but
it violates the spirit of the Fifth Amendment, an amendment which was
passed in response to the corrupt British practice of retrying dissidents
over and over again until a jury delivered a guilty verdict.
I should add that most leftist opponents of the Blueford v. Arkansas
decision express contempt for the Fifth Amendment right to a Grand Jury
indictment. George Zimmerman, the Hispanic man who shot African-American
teenager Trayvon Martin in alleged self-defense was indicted on
manslaughter charges without a Grand Jury. Leftards bleated praise for
this violation of Zimmerman's constitutional rights, and they seem to
have already made his jury's mind up for them, informing them in not-so-
subtle terms that they will be killed if they vote to acquit.
Leftards and Rightards alike treat the U.S. Constitution like religious
zealots treat the bible and koran, picking and choosing which passages to
ignore and which to demand everyone else obey without question. But
unlike "holy" scriptures, the Constitution can be amended as needed to
suit the needs of modern society. The Fifth Amendment guarantees a right
against double jeopardy *AND* to be indicted by a Grand Jury. There is
no picking and choosing: *BOTH* rights must be respected. If you don't
like it, garner enough public support for a constitutional amendment.
Until then, you must respect the Constitution in its entirety, and the
rest of us will use our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to
ensure that you do.
3006 Dead
May 26, 2012, 2:09:29 AM5/26/12
to
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
May 26, 2012, 7:06:30 PM5/26/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jppagg$6gk$1...@dont-email.me...
in a MISTRIAL! Why is that so freaking difficult for you to grasp?
Stop dancing and just admit you're just as wrong as the three dissenting
justices.
--
Sir Gregory
3006 Dead
May 26, 2012, 8:20:05 PM5/26/12
to
that will confuse a jury, just so they can grind a defendant down through
attrition.
Padraigh ProAmerica
May 27, 2012, 10:41:08 PM5/27/12
to
Re: #Supreme Court rules acquitted man can be retried
Group: alt.politics.usa.constitution Date: Sun, May 27, 2012, 12:20am
(EDT+4) From: de...@gone.com (3006 Dead)
On Sat, 26 May 2012 19:06:30 -0400, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
news:jppagg$6gk$1...@dont-email.me...
"3006 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jpp50q$ppg$6...@dont-email.me...
On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:12:05 -0400, Sir · Gregory
"3006 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jpp50q$ppg$6...@dont-email.me...
· Hall, Esq.
On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:21:46 -0400, Sir · Gregory
· Hall, Esq.
" Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq."
<greghall@home.fåke> wrote in
message news:5llbpt....@news.alt.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jpok7i$v45$1...@dont-email.me...
"Dänk 42Ø" <da...@purpleurkle.org> wrote in message
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jpok7i$v45$1...@dont-email.me...
news:ffadnQHv-Yw1JyLS...@earthlink.com...
I strongly disagree with this ruling and condemn the Justices who voted
for it. I am surprised, however, that the two Obama nominees, Sonia
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Chairman Obama and the Democrats
are as much a threat to our constitution and freedom as Emperor Bush and
the Republicans, so I expect this seeming defense of the Fifth Amendment
right against double jeopardy will be an anomaly among the rulings they
make during their terms on the Court.
______________________________________________
I strongly disagree with this ruling and condemn the Justices who voted
for it. I am surprised, however, that the two Obama nominees, Sonia
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Chairman Obama and the Democrats
are as much a threat to our constitution and freedom as Emperor Bush and
the Republicans, so I expect this seeming defense of the Fifth Amendment
right against double jeopardy will be an anomaly among the rulings they
make during their terms on the Court.
______________________________________________
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/blueford-v-state-of-
arkansas/
Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
May 24, 2012
Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from
retrying Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder
after the jury in
Blueford’s original
arkansas/
Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)
May 24, 2012
Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from
retrying Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder
after the jury in
No.
The charges depend on State laws. In some jurisdictions, a jury can vote
to convict on a lesser charge on their own; in others, they can only
vote on the charges presented; it is in the latter that multiple charges
for the same offense may be levied.
There are also legal prohibitions on retrying someone over and over-it's
called malicious prosecution, and it's a crime.
Jeff Strickland
May 31, 2012, 3:35:28 PM5/31/12
to
" Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq." <greghall@home.fåke> wrote in message
>
> You are one confused individual. You are confused because you lack
> clarity. The clarity you lack is the FACT that a mistrial was declared. A
> mistrial means EVERYTHING covered in the trial is null and void. It's as
> if the trial never happened. No trial means there cannot be double
> jeopardy for in order for anything to be double there needs be a single.
> In this case there was not a single.
>
> So, stop using that which happened during a mistrial as if it occurred
> during a trial. That is your error. And that is the error of the three
> liberal justices who dissented.
>
> --
> Sir Gregory
From the Apples and Oranges Department...
> You are one confused individual. You are confused because you lack
> clarity. The clarity you lack is the FACT that a mistrial was declared. A
> mistrial means EVERYTHING covered in the trial is null and void. It's as
> if the trial never happened. No trial means there cannot be double
> jeopardy for in order for anything to be double there needs be a single.
> In this case there was not a single.
>
> So, stop using that which happened during a mistrial as if it occurred
> during a trial. That is your error. And that is the error of the three
> liberal justices who dissented.
>
> --
> Sir Gregory
They are discussing RIGHT NOW that the John Edwards jury is unamimous on one
of six counts, and hung on the other five. They have not said what the
single verdict is, but they have said it is pursuant to Count 3, and that
they had a verdict on that count.
The legal people that know this stuff all agree that whatever the verdict on
Count 3, it will stand while the hung jury on the other five charges can be
ruled a mistrial and those five charges can be tried again while the Count 3
is done.
SO, if the jury in the case we were originally discussing was unamimous on
acquital of two of three counts, then to retry those two counts should be
double jeopardy.
The caveat is that there must be a FORMAL VERDICT that is recorded. If the
murder trial did not result in a formal verdict, then the entire trial can
be ruled a mistrial. Had there been a formal verdict of acquital on two of
the charges and a hung jury on the remaining charge, then there is double
jeopardy on the retrial of the acquital. If the jury simply said, we are all
toghether on the acquital of two charges and hung on the third, but the
judge did not enter that as the formal verdict, then the defense dropped the
ball and left their client open to facing the same charges over again.
Jeff Strickland
May 31, 2012, 4:35:07 PM5/31/12
to
news:jq8h5v$j34$1...@dont-email.me...
Edwards is NOT GUILTY on Count 3. The other five counts are hung at this
time. The jury went back to deliberate. they told the judge that they could
not reach a decision, but the judge sent them to deliberate some more.
You can be sure that Edwards will not face Count 3 again, regardless of the
outcome of the continued deliberations.
time. The jury went back to deliberate. they told the judge that they could
not reach a decision, but the judge sent them to deliberate some more.
You can be sure that Edwards will not face Count 3 again, regardless of the
outcome of the continued deliberations.
Padraigh ProAmerica
May 31, 2012, 8:44:16 PM5/31/12
to
Re: #Supreme Court rules acquitted man can be retried
(EDT-3) From: crwl...@yahoo.com (Jeff Strickland)
The difference is that the murder involved ONE crime. The prosecution
presented three charges; the jury could select the most appropriate
charge to convict on based on the evidence presented.
The Edwards case involves multiple charges based on multiple crimes.
Totaly different situation.
Jeff Strickland
Jun 1, 2012, 10:27:31 AM6/1/12
to
"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18275-4FC...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
Technically, Edwards had multiple charges to the same crime. He allegedly
used campaign dollars to hide his mistress, that's a single crime. He did it
repeatedly, that's multiple charges. He was acquitted on one of six charges,
the point being that he can never be tried again on that charge, but he
could be tried again on the other five. The chances of being retried appear
to be dim, but the legality of the retrial is sound.
The comparison here is that the murder suspect was also charged on multiple
counts, and aquitted on some portion of those counts and mistried on the
other portion. He ought to have been open to retrial on the mistried counts,
but not on the acquitted counts. The murder supsect was acquitted by the
jury on two of three counts, and the jury hung on the third count. He was
also acquitted on the two most serious of the charges he faced, and the jury
hung on the least serious charge.
I wish I knew more about this case, but given the facts that I have at this
time, I think there is a problem of double jeopardy -- the suspect should
not face capital murder charges again for this crime because a jury already
acquitted on that charge, but he should be open to facing the manslaughter
charge because the jury hung on that one. Edwards will not face the
allegations of Charge #3 again because the jury acquitted, but he is open to
facing the allegations of the other five charges because the jury hung. The
legal principles are the same even if the criminal acts are not.
0 new messages