Double Jeopardy has been altered.
Z
2012/05/24 20:10:27
|
|
|||||
|
2 votes
|
|
50% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
50% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
After an individual was aquited for murder, but there was a gridlock that caused a mistrial on lesser charges, a clerical error did not record the murder acquittal. The Supreme Court recently decided that, because it was a mistrial, and thus technically no full decision was reached, the defendant was not able to claim double jeopardy. As a result, they can be tried again. The legal community is extremely concerned with the outcome of this decision, with the effects being vast.
The supporting opinion, by Chief Justice Roberts, says:
"The jury in this case did not convict Blueford of any offense, but it
did not acquit him of any either,"... "When the jury was unable to reach a verdict, the trial court properly
declared a mistrial and discharged the jury. As a consequence, the
Double Jeopardy Clause does not stand in the way of a second trial on
the same offenses."
The dissenting opinion was:
Who do you agree with?
The supporting opinion, by Chief Justice Roberts, says:
"The jury in this case did not convict Blueford of any offense, but it
did not acquit him of any either,"... "When the jury was unable to reach a verdict, the trial court properly
declared a mistrial and discharged the jury. As a consequence, the
Double Jeopardy Clause does not stand in the way of a second trial on
the same offenses."
The dissenting opinion was:
"At its core, the
Double Jeopardy Clause reflects the wisdom of the founding generation
... that one acquittal or conviction should satisfy the law," she wrote
in a dissenting opinion.
She
added, "This case demonstrates that the threat to individual freedom
from reprosecutions that favor states and unfairly rescue them from weak
cases has not waned with time. Only this court's vigilance has."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan joined the dissent.
Sort By
- Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/05/24 20:57:19The dissenting opinion
If it was in fact a clerical error that caused his acquittal to not be properly recorded, then he should walk free because he was acquitted. There is no mistrial.reply - Steve Rogers 2012/05/24 20:44:20The majority opinionAs many victims have been traumatized due to "clerical errors" its about time the pendulum swung the other way. All this will lead to is more care in correctly filing, and recording court minutes and issues. One point for the Good Guysreply
-
But the man was found innocent. So this would be an innocent man being unnecessarily victimized.reply
- Steve R... Z 2012/05/24 21:38:54He was acquitted. That is not the same as a jury finding innocent. To acquit is to free or clear from a charge. Basically, the charges were dropped in the murder charge because, one would logically assume, the prosecutor did not feel confident in getting a conviction of the charge. Therefor, the murder charge was acquitted and the jury became hung on the lesser charges.reply
-
The dissenting opinionWhile I can understand the majority opinion, this puts individuals at risk because of being retried because of another persons mistakes or actions.reply
