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

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Nspekta

 

In this particular case its not an agree to disagree. I state this because there is no gray area in this issue. There was no offical verdict for all of the charges. That means a hung jury and mis trial. Even the Supreme Court is telling you that you are wrong and for good reason - gecause you are.

The jury could ahve reachged a verdict on 14 of 15 cahrges. If they cant agree on the last charge its a hung jury and results in a mistrial. Thats the way it is, thats the way it works, and it is not double jeopardy.

Opinion in this case is not a valid position.

Again, my point is that there is an inherit flaw in retrying someone again and again especially in this case. Btw, i have the right to my opinion, just like you. So does the supreme court, which i might add that the decision made was not unanimous!, the way the system works, you are right. No official verdict, hung jury=retrial. But is it fair that he was already deemed not guilty and yet is tried again? Pointless question because you side with the system and thats YOUR OPINION! Every issue in the whole world is entitled to different opinions, so because you say its right or i say its wrong is valid. Its not going to change your opinion or mine, but they are still valid and we both have the right to have them. So just because you and the supreme court say it doesnt matter still doesnt change the fact that ANYONE can have their opinion! My opinion of you is that you feel the need to be put up on a pedestal and spout your OPINIONS as being more valid than mine. You have that right, as do i for having that opinion.
So yes, imo, we can agree to disagree. I feel this story is wrong, you feel it is right. Yay for both of us expressing our FREEDOM OF OPINION and free speech

Originally posted by reitze

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Nspekta

 

In this particular case its not an agree to disagree. I state this because there is no gray area in this issue. There was no offical verdict for all of the charges. That means a hung jury and mis trial. Even the Supreme Court is telling you that you are wrong and for good reason - gecause you are.

The jury could have reached a verdict on 14 of 15 charges. If they cant agree on the last charge its a hung jury and results in a mistrial. Thats the way it is, thats the way it works, and it is not double jeopardy.

Opinion in this case is not a valid position.

edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Bull. If only one of the charges were hung than that would be the ONLY charge eligible for a retrial - the rest would be double jeopardy in the mind of any jurror considering any of the cases 1 at a time. As in something to the effect of: Already tried and found innocent of charge #7? NOT GUILTY by reason of the US constitution as paid in blood by my ancestors - Don't like it? Voting against it? That's treason/act of war, so eat some bullets or my fist and die you commie.

The judge declared a mistrial on the entire case, which means all charges, not just the one.. end of story

reply to post by Nspekta


He was not deemed not guilty.. You keep using that as if it were an ofical verdict but it was not. There wa no legal conclusion to the trial. There was no verdict, regardless of opinion. It is all or nothing.

It is not doujble jeopardy.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by reitze

 

Wow.. using bull you really got me there.

Tell ya what.... go do some research on how the legal system works then get back to me.

edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Perhapse its a bit harsh on my part - sorry if it didn't show you more personal respect.

But yea emotionally, I don't agree with the concept of charging 5 charges and then retrying all 5 after found innocent on the 2 worst case charges the 1st time - doing it again and again. To me that's a legal system gone corrupt via the interest of prison, police, and lawyer lobbies - at the expense of the constitution. Its an erotion of what my ancestors paid for in blood. It makes this nation not worth crap and no wonder the economy is in the hole while everyone's demotivated by the out-of-control beauracuracies going on. Its one of those things that just ain't right no matter how 'legal' its been eroded. As a jurror I'd never go along with that form of dissrespect toward the constitution - and yea the prohibitions on mentioning nullifications are similarly corruption IMHO.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Nspekta

 

He was not deemed not guilty.. You keep using that as if it were an ofical verdict but it was not. There wa no legal conclusion to the trial. There was no verdict, regardless of opinion. It is all or nothing.

It is not doujble jeopardy.

Again, you are missing the point so what can i do... Get off your pedestal, question the system!! I dont deny the fact that it wasnt OFFICIAL! Get it through your head dude!
Btw, way to not respond to the whole freedom of opinion thing... I feel bad that you obviously feel that things shouldnt be discussed because peoples opinions differ from your own. Very sad.

*the very system you defend is based on freedom of opinion and justice, the whole point of sending the case to the supreme court was to have their OPINION and to make a ruling on it. So, by saying that opinion is not valid in this case is total bs, but im sure you wont be able to fathom that either*
Pce

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Nspekta

 

He was not deemed not guilty.. You keep using that as if it were an ofical verdict but it was not. There wa no legal conclusion to the trial. There was no verdict, regardless of opinion. It is all or nothing.

It is not doujble jeopardy.

He was to (found not guilty) - by a unanimous jury. So the judge refused to accept it and insured a retrial via declaring a mistrial rather than reading the juror's decision on those 2 charges into the record. That's corrupt IMHO. Sure you can legal-nuance all sorts of things to devalue the constitution and create double jeopardy - but what US citizen would go along with a conviction the 2nd time around? Oh they wouldn't be allowed to know?

What ever happened to the TRUTH, nothing but the truth, and the WHOLE TRUTH? Calling that a mistrial is not the WHOLE TRUTH - and anyone allowed to know that would tend to think of it that way unless they were a lawyer, cop, judge, or criminal - vested interest in enslavement/prison-sentences and lawyer payments to fight BS crap that shouldn't happen in this here USA. [

reply to post by reitze


The jury was not able to agree on verdicts for ALL of the charges, resulting in a hung jury and a mis trial. I am not sure how many more times I can go through tihis.

Please read the thread and the Supreme Courts ruling.

There was NO verdict reached in his trial since the jury could not agree on verdicts for ALL the charges.

= hung jury = mistrial = prosecutor is allowed to refile charges or not to refile charges = no double jeopardy.

Lets try this -
Double Jeopardy

'[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

He was not aquitted....
He was not convicted....
He was not punished multiple times for one offense...

= NOT double jeopardy.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by reitze

 

The jury was not able to agree on verdicts for ALL of the charges, resulting in a hung jury and a mis trial. I am not sure how many more times I can go through tihis.

You're offering a legalistic prosecution favoring bias via activist judge maneuvering to declare mistrial rather than accept a verdict that's been given... using that to discount a Jury's DECISION on 2 of the charges. You fail to change the truth that the jury decided. After their decision the judge decided not to allow that decision and locked all the charges together into his all-nothing binary pin-headed mindset to enable retrial?

As I said that's just wrong in any common sense of the spirit of the constitution of this USA. Sure loop-holes and precedents are USED to justify crimes against the constitution. # why not charge him with 100 charges- sequencing for the worst-1st. Don't get that? Keep on declaring mistrials forever - he'd never get free again would he. THAT's why its just plain wrong and in your heart you've got to realize that's true or you're just not being honest. It makes me think you must be a lawyer, judge, cop or prison-gard, or someone with a reason to promote the inexcusable crime the SCOTUS just committed. They should be impeached over it too. Certainly they've just hurt the USA for the citizens - to the extent that I consider it nearly treason.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by reitze

 

The jury was not able to agree on verdicts for ALL of the charges, resulting in a hung jury and a mis trial. I am not sure how many more times I can go through tihis.

...

Lets try this... if the jury had found him GUILTY on 1 charge while not being able to agree on the other charges would it have been declared a mistrial? I for one doubt it. And if so it demonstrates the prosecutor did a crappy job wasting taxpayer money via an imprecise charging decision. All or nothing? Then make it 1 charge for 1 crime. Otherwise you're bastardizing the constitution and acting like its OK. Its not, its a crime against the USA - of the scope and magnitude of the 911.

reply to post by reitze

I hate to sound repetitive, but if all of the other facts were the same, the result would have been the same - mistrial.

Part of the problem comes when you say "found" him guilty or innocent. Remember the TV shows where the judge asks the foreman to give him the verdict and the foreman hands it to the bailiff, etc? The Supreme Court said the jury never got to that part. They told the judge what they were thinking at that moment, then went back to work on it some more. As long as they were working on it, they could change their minds and find him guilty of capital murder if they wanted to.

Crappy charging decision? I'm not as sure as you are. The jury is supposed to determine facts. The prosecutor may say "It looks to us like it was pre-meditated, but if the jury sees this fact differently, then it's more likely manslaughter. This lets the jury decide the facts and decide what crime was committed. It's the way it's been done for a long time in federal and state courts.

reply to post by reitze


Yes there would have been a mistrial... Dont believe me.. Look at the John Edwards trial.

John Edwards Trial: Mistrial Declared In Case

GREENSBORO, N.C. — John Edwards' campaign finance fraud case ended in a mistrial Thursday when jurors acquitted him on one of six charges but were unable to decide whether he misused money from two wealthy donors to hide his pregnant mistress while he ran for president.

....

Federal prosecutors are unlikely to retry the case, a law enforcement official told AP on the condition of anonymity because the decision will undergo review in the coming days.

and....

Blagojevich guilty on one count; mistrial on 23 others

CHICAGO — The federal jury that found former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich guilty of just one count of lying to federal agents was deadlocked 11-1 in favor of convicting him of more serious counts involving an alleged attempt to sell a Senate seat, two jurors said Tuesday.

Prosecutors pledged to retry the case as soon as possible.

I view this case in a different light, as the inspiration behind the SCOTUS decision, which, like it or not, weakens our protection from 'double-jeopardy'.

Read Sonia Sotomayor dissenting opinion:
"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. Only this court's vigilance has," she wrote.

Supreme Court limits protection against double jeopardy

Justices rule that a jury's unanimous but tentative vote to acquit a defendant on some charges does not count as a verdict.

The jury in the Arkansas case made a unanimous decision to acquit on the murder charges, and deadlocked on the manslaughter charge. The SCOTUS decision means the guy will have to face another trial for murder, which the previous jury had unanimously acquitted him of.

Sotomayor:

“Blueford’s jury had the option to convict him of capital and first-degree murder, but expressly declined to do so,” Sotomayor wrote. “That ought to be the end of the matter.”

The jury acquitted him of all the capital charges and was only hung on deliberating the lesser charges. the lower court and the defense agreed Bluford could be retried on the lesser charges (manslaughter & negligent homicide) but the SCOTUS overruled that, and put the murder charge back in the mix. That is double-jeopardy, as that was the charge one jury already acquitted him of.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
"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. Only this court's vigilance has," she wrote.

Not only that - the police, prosicutors, and anyone else who condoned this abortion of justice will be swing from the tree of tyrany of history. That's called hell.

Don't like freedom, you're kids will be tried again and again for crimes not committed. Even conservative estimates indicate over 20% false convictions. Win The Future? WTF. Burn!

reply to post by reitze


Law Enforcement is not part of the judicial and has absolutely nothing to do with trials, charges or prosecution.

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.

The judge didn't forget anything. The jury wasn't ready to submit their verdict in the case and were being asked by the judge where they stand in their deliberations. While the jury foreman informed the judge that they were okay on a couple of counts, they were struggling with others. So they returned to deliberations.

But for argument sake, can you show me where the judge "forgot" to administer judgement when judgement had not been given yet; as per the instructions of the court at the beginning of the trial?