posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 07:44 AM
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Have you read anything about it? I didn't think so. Double jeopardy was not mentioned in the case. The court said that it was 'permissible'. There
is a world of difference between it being permissible and constitutional when a defendant is pleading double jeopardy.
Although the question in Perez was indeed whether a defendant could be retried following a hung jury, nowhere in the unanimous opinion authored by
Justice Story, is either double jeopardy or the fifth amendment mentioned. This failure to refer to the Constitution was not inadvertent. In 1824, the
hung jury question did not implicate the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment. At that time, the Court adhered to the English common law view
that jeopardy does not attach until a verdict is rendered.
Since Perez, however, the Supreme Court has held that jeopardy attaches before a verdict is rendered—specifically when the jury is impaneled and
sworn. In doing so, it created an issue that did not obtain when Perez was decided.
Lots of things can be permissible in court without a proper objection.
edit on 20-6-2017 by craterman because: (no reason given)