Judge Declares Mistrial for Mob Boss Gotti

The racketeering trial of John Gotti ended Tuesday the way his late father Teflon Don would have wanted it, none of the charges stuck. Federal judge Shira Scheindlin declared a mistrial and announced she will grant a bail request for Gotti, which means he will walk free in a few days.



Makes me wonder what function the US legal system actually serves when you see something like this happen. Appalling!

Related News Links:
www.newsday.com
www.washingtonpost.com

[edit on 21-9-2005 by Regenmacher]

[edit on 26-9-2005 by asala]

And you thought it would turn out another way?? *pffftttt* come on.

"Yo boss you want should I wack the judge?"

The US has one of few legal systems that enables a lawyer to be paid at a higher rate than a good plumber.

*Edit - discrete substitution of "has" for "is"*

[edit on 21-9-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

Intro is misleading. He will not walk free he will be out on bail there is a differance.

Damn, man, I knew I shoulda been a gangster! Maybe it's not too late...

Zip

I'll have to break it down for you all...just so you understood what actually happened.

John Gotti, went to Court on Four [major] charges.
The Prosecution gave their evidence.
The Defence their evidence.
The jury were then sent out to decide on the verdict, they came back with a hung verdict on three of four counts and a no verdict on the other.
The Judge then decided to either:

A] Let him go free or;
B] Declare a mistrial.

If the Judge had gone down the road of A he would never ever stand on these counts again and would go free, instead of this they have allowed him to go out on bail and at a later date the will put him back on trial so in fact he is not free.

This is what happens in a Jury Trial, sorry to let you know that in many cases people are:

A] Too scared to put someone in prison,
B] Do not like the Government/Police and thus are bias,
C] Media bias is involved or;
D] They have been 'bought' by the defendent or;
E] The State has failed to proove that the person is guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

More often than not a person is found 'Not Guilty' due to the State and the fact they have failed to proove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the person is guilty.

If you read over the article some people were found guilty, others were found not guilty, others were 'hung' and thus will go through another trial.

If the Judge had not ordered this he would be free so why in God's name are you making out like the Legal System is at fault unless you wish to remove Jury Trials?

What precisely is appalling here? A jury couldn't decide, so the judge coudl seuqester them forever until they do decide, or start a new trial. The system is working fine, its the people that are broken

No retrial, then he walks.

If they do not have the evidence to put him away, we can't want him placed in prison...or should we just begin locking everyone up because we 'say' they are something?

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Too bad, though, that we couldn't nail this guy. Someone's responsible for the inability to prosecute him.

Zip