It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court Okays Double Jeopardy!!! 5th Amendment Violated! VIDEO

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


Yeah this incident happened about 20 miles from where i live in the next town. Blueford is lying out of his ass. You don't hit a kid hard enough to knock them down and kill them even if you are startled.

Nobody in my town buys his excuse.




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by LightningStrikesHere
reply to post by jude11
 


indeed , you need not say more my friend , this justice system is *COUGH* well you know


Yeah, I know, it's a "just-us" system.


Here in arkansas we are infested with "the good 'ol boy" system. it's not wether your innocent or guilty it's who you know that decides your guilt or innocence. It makes me sick.
edit on 5-6-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
here in the uk you can be found not guilty and if any more evidence comes to light after the trail you can be re-tried



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


The judge declared a mistrial.
They have to start the whole procedure over again.

Another interesting thing I learned recently.
I know of someone who was a witness to crime.
The case was tried already and the defendant was sent to prison.
However on appeal it was found that the court records of the trial were lost.
So now they have to restart the process all over again.

So apparently yes you can be tried for the same crime twice depending on the circumstances.
edit on 5-6-2012 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I disagree. The way it is now, we allow people like Angela Corey to use their important job to grandstand and make a name for themselves. It's a spit in the face of the law. There should be no safety net, overcharging should be punished by a defeat. That should make prosecutors think twice about what they think they can prove, and curb overcharging. If they cannot prove the intent, then the charge should be manslaughter, not murder with a safety net of manslaughter. I don't think it is right in any sense of the word to gamble with years of someone's life in order to make a name for yourself or climb the political ladder.


Although I agree with you on your Angela Corey point, I feel it is very unfair to use her as any type of example in regards to this case. This case has zero resemblance to the Trayvon Martin case which is why in any example I have used, I have used the details about THIS case. Fact is, in this case, the doctors are arguing that there was intent based on the severity of the injuries. In the Trayvon Martin case.. it is speculation at best. Any attempt to compare the two cases is really unfair.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by abe froman
If the Judge declares a mis-trial it is legally as if the trial never happenend. The Jury was unable to reach a verdict,hung jury, or deadlocked jury, equals mis-trial. This happens all the time.


youre missing one importand fact the jury wasnt deadlocked they provided a verdict the JUDGE FORGOT to write that verdict down and declared a mistrial...

when i forget to do something important at my job i would get fired.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
This isn't double jeopardy the first trail ended in a mistrial not an acquittal like his lawyers are saying. And I am disappointed that Judge from FOX didn't pick up on that he should know better.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Nspekta
 


Yeah this incident happened about 20 miles from where i live in the next town. Blueford is lying out of his ass. You don't hit a kid hard enough to knock them down and kill them even if you are startled.

Nobody in my town buys his excuse.


thats not the point only your opinion and assumption.

every person deserves a fair trial this trial was not fair it was forgotten.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL

Originally posted by abe froman
If the Judge declares a mis-trial it is legally as if the trial never happenend. The Jury was unable to reach a verdict,hung jury, or deadlocked jury, equals mis-trial. This happens all the time.


youre missing one importand fact the jury wasnt deadlocked they provided a verdict the JUDGE FORGOT to write that verdict down and declared a mistrial...

when i forget to do something important at my job i would get fired.


No they didn't provide a verdict on the lesser charges. It was deadlocked 9 to 3 so the Judge ruled it as a mistrial. This left the case to be open to have a retrial.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by MrWendal
I am going to have to look a little deeper into this case, but on the surface, double jeopardy does not apply here. For starters, the Judge declared a mistrial when the Jury was unable to reach a verdict. That is a HUGE difference from a Jury finding him not guilty. In the event of a mistrial, the prosecution has the opportunity to retry the case if they choose to do so. A "mistrial" and a "not guilty" verdict are two completely separate things.

Here is the actual Supreme Court case....instead of a third party twist on it.
Blueford v. Arkansas


This case was reviewed on the merits by the second Trial Court, which found no error.
It was then reviewed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which found no error.
It then reached the SCOTUS, which found no error.
(3 bites at the apple)

No verdict renedered; no double jeopardy.

We had exectly the same fact scenario in Texas a while back, but the State decided NOT to allege anything but the "negligent homicide" charge. The case was tried to a jury which found the "babysitter" guilty of the charges.

All involved, including the defense attorney, trial prosecutor and the Court agreed that the facts supported murder charges. Several members of the jury asked why they were not sought. The answer? The elected prosecutor didn't want to take any chances in an election year.
He lost.

jw
edit on 5-6-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Nothing I quoted comes from the article. What I quoted can be found in the Supreme Court's pdf which is linked in this thread. Here is the link again in case you missed it.


There wasn't the intention of implying you quoted anything from the article -- my apologies. I was explaining what the OP's article linked and the actual Court's opinion and what seems to be the twist and contention regarding the case.

And I didn't miss the link...because I linked it!



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The blanket of trying someone for 3 different flavors of the same BS is what should be called into question. Murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault and fashionably bad taste
all tried at once is the problem. No more charges all covering the same thing in the hopes something'll stick.

I can see why the SCOTUS decided as they did, it isn't truly a hung jury but a mistrial on the other count.

They can only pursue a re-trial for the mistrial charges, no?

If they can have a retrial for all, it is time to get out the pitchforks and go after those lovely GOP appointed folks on the SCOTUS as they're the Draconian overlords deciding such things!

Derek



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


It's not the Trayvon Martin case that I was really thinking of when I tossed her name out there. I was thinking of that 12 year old she is charging more then Zimmerman, although Zimmerman is also at the wrong end of that ugly stick she is weilding. Something needs to change, and bring common sense and sanity back into the court systems. That probably won't happen any time soon though.

Maybe make the state foot the legal bills every time they do not prove their case beyond a resonable doubt. That might even the playing field a bit. Some poor folks being railroaded might actually be able to get a decent lawyer now and again that way.
edit on Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:49:31 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
You wanted a hard-right wing court, you GOT a hard-right wing court. Good luck with your civil liberties and all that.


Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote the decision in the case of Blueford v. Arkansas, prompting a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.

"This case demonstrates that the threat to individual freedom from re-prosecutions that favor states and unfairly rescue them from weak cases has not waned with time," wrote Sotomayor. "Only this Court's vigilance has."



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL

Originally posted by abe froman
If the Judge declares a mis-trial it is legally as if the trial never happenend. The Jury was unable to reach a verdict,hung jury, or deadlocked jury, equals mis-trial. This happens all the time.


youre missing one importand fact the jury wasnt deadlocked they provided a verdict the JUDGE FORGOT to write that verdict down and declared a mistrial...

when i forget to do something important at my job i would get fired.


They provided a verdict on just 2 of the charges. The remainder of the charges were never agreed on by the jury. It results in a mistrial and the prosecution can refile the charges. This has nothing to do woth the judge writing anything down.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nspekta

Yes and no..well not really, no but potentially! In this case, the jury ruled that he was not guilty of the two highest potential charges, capital and 1st deg. Murder. BUT, the re-trial(and depends on which source you use from above, the video or the cornell report) of this man on the SAME charges and same evidence because the judge either forgot to make note of the jury's decision or through normal court case closing procedures. The fact is, he was deemed not guilty by a jury yet he will be tried again anyways! This could potentially set a precedent that will completely tarnish the 5th


Absolutely correct.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by stillwind

Originally posted by Nspekta

Yes and no..well not really, no but potentially! In this case, the jury ruled that he was not guilty of the two highest potential charges, capital and 1st deg. Murder. BUT, the re-trial(and depends on which source you use from above, the video or the cornell report) of this man on the SAME charges and same evidence because the judge either forgot to make note of the jury's decision or through normal court case closing procedures. The fact is, he was deemed not guilty by a jury yet he will be tried again anyways! This could potentially set a precedent that will completely tarnish the 5th


Absolutely correct.


Absolutely incorrect....

The jury must reach a verdict on ALL charges and not just a couple. Since they could not reach a verdict on the remaining charges, its a hung jury resulting in mistrial.

John Edwards was found guilty on one of his counts and not the others and that verdict for the one charge is irrelevant. Its all charges or mistrial.

It has always been that way....



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


Misleading title. Retrial after a mistrial is not double jeopardy. If the jury does not say not guilty, then the defendant is subject to retrial.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


So, folks... are you ready to believe it yet?

"The Constitution's just a goddamn piece of paper!" - G.W. Bush

He was telling you the truth, but you fearful plebes want so badly to have a govern for your ment that you "hope" in "change" and refuse to take responsibility for your experience when it turns sour.

You will get what's coming to you. Each individually, of course. Don't assume I mean something "bad". It will be exactly what you need, such that those of you who can be awakened, will be. The ostriches... I don't think it will go very well for them. Big hurt, and penalty box time at the least.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 


Why bother posting if you don't eeve bother to read all of the info present?

It was a hung jury resulting in a mistrial... There is no double jeopardy implications at all - period.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join