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

This is actually a couple days old , but seeing its importance and the fact that it hasn't been posted AND i'm not sure exactly which forum it should go in, sorry mods, please move it elsewhere if need be.

First and foremost, I feel for the family and the poor child that died in regards to this trial

High Court Okays Double Jeopardy source
Court sides with prosecutors in double jeopardy

The U.S. Supreme Court took a narrow view of the Constitution's double jeopardy clause on Thursday, allowing the retrial of an Arkansas man on murder charges even though the jury in his first trial voted unanimously that he was not guilty.
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."

Source

Wow! So you can be tried for a charge, the jury can come to a not-guilty decision and then you can be re-tried again!

5th Amendment

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

Cornell Law

This case in question is the following:
*the following is cut and pasted from the article, its kinda long, so please read it to get a better understanding of the case*
Cornell Law

On November 28, 2007, Petitioner Alex Blueford was watching Matthew McFadden, Jr., his girlfriend's 20-month-old son, in their home. See Brief for Petitioner, Alex Blueford at 2. Shortly after Blueford began babysitting, McFadden stopped breathing. See id. at 3. He died in the hospital from a closed head injury a few days later. See id. Blueford was charged with capital murder in the death of McFadden, and trial began in the Pulaski County Circuit Court in August 2009. See Blueford v. Arkansas, 2011 Ark. 8 (2011) at *1. At trial, Blueford claimed that McFadden’s injuries occurred while Blueford was on his bed taking a phone call and McFadden climbed up on the bed. See Brief for Petitioner at 5–6. Blueford said he was startled when McFadden waved a lit cigarette near his face, causing him to accidentally hit McFadden in the head and knock him to the floor. See id. at 6. While Blueford states that he did not initially recognize that McFadden was harmed, he soon realized something was wrong and tried to revive McFadden. See id. In contrast to Blueford’s testimony, Arkansas’ expert pediatricians and the state medical examiner compared McFadden’s injuries to those from a serious car accident and contended that the injuries were caused by severe, intentional trauma.

The court instructed the jury to consider capital murder, first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide, in that order.

The jury continued, but felt that they were unable to reach a consensus and again appeared before the court. See id. In explaining the deadlock to the judge, the forewoman stated that the jury was unanimously against charges of capital murder and first-degree murder, and that nine of the twelve jurors were in favor of manslaughter. See id. at *3. The forewoman then admitted that the jury had not yet discussed negligent homicide, so the judge asked the jury to continue deliberating. See id. at *3–4. After the jury again reported a deadlock, the judge declared a mistrial.

"the forewoman stated that the jury was unanimously against charges of capital murder and first-degree murder"!

OK, so the jurors all agree that he is not guilty of Capital Murder and first-degree murder,
Because of the mistrial, another one was set for March of 2010, his lawyer filed a motion saying that retrying him on the same charges was illegal and unconstitutional because the jury had already acquited him of Capital murder and First degree murder but....

The circuit court denied Blueford's motion, holding that there was no acquittal as the jury never finished its deliberations to arrive at a verdict.

here is the Cornell Analysis..

The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits trying a defendant twice for the same offense. See U.S. Const. Amend. X. The Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled that although the jury foreperson announced that the jury had unanimously voted against finding Blueford guilty of capital and first-degree murder, the announcement was neither a “finding” nor a “verdict” as intended by the law. See Blueford v. Arkansas at *4. Thus, the court ruled that the announcement by the jury foreperson was not an acquittal for purposes of establishing former jeopardy.

This is SCARY! Blatant violation of American Constitution! Americans!

The Jury deems the man not guilty of Capital and First degree murder, and the Supreme Court has ruled that he CAN be re-tried under those original charges, even after the Jury declared him NOT guilty!!



In the video, the commenter say's the judge in the case forgot to write down the verdict, so it is a little conflicting. Of course, if he 'forgot' and now the guy has to re-trial all over again because of that, its even worse!

I'm not saying the guy doesn't deserve jail time.. from the story it seems unfortunate about what happened, and i think manslaughter or the lesser charge may apply, but certainly not a Capital or First Degree Charge, as the Jury in the first trial also decreed.. Yet he must now prove his case all over again on the same charges!

You may be asking yourself,

Surely we can make an exception for serious cases, such as murder, where there is compelling evidence of guilt subsequent to acquittal?

If anything, in a serious case, where the consequences of a wrongful conviction or a wrongful acquittal are serious, the case for an exception to be made is weakest. With serious crimes, it is most important that an investigation and trial be performed with utmost care and thoroughness—mistakes could cost lives and lead to innocent people being jailed for many years. Allowing a repeat trial in such circumstances would lead to an incentive to hold back evidence, or lines of inquiry, for a retrial.

Thus the double jeopardy rule is even more important than normal in such cases, as it puts pressure on the prosecution and the investigators of a crime to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, because they will not have a second chance.

source

Thoughts?!

*ATS Threads on Double Jeopardy*
Double Jeopardy
Scottish government to abolish double jeopardy law
Has Obama, the scholar of the Constitution, ever heard of Double Jeopardy?,

lol , this is just wild , you know it brings me back to my administrative justice mid term , i did it on the Wedding cake model

The Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice was developed by Samuel Walker, a scholar who analyzed the judicial system. The theory divides the proceedings in the criminal justice system into four different categories: celebrated cases, serious felonies, lesser felonies and misdemeanors. The theory allows for a closer analysis of these different types of cases based on the manner in which they are dealt with in the criminal justice system Read more: The Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

www.ehow.com...

i do recommend this as a read ,


and just to give you a little taste of the cake

Celebrated Cases The top layer of the Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice includes the "celebrated cases." These types of cases garner a great deal of media attention because the crimes are unusual or because the defendants are celebrities or high-ranking officials. The manner in which these types of cases are undertaken is not typical of the operation of the criminal justice system. Because they are such high-profile cases, there are factors that need to be taken into consideration that do not exist in more typical criminal cases. These include everything from cameras in the courtroom to crowd control. By their very nature, examples of celebrated cases are obvious: OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Bernie Madoff and so forth. Read more: The Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

So what I'm getting from this is that they can bring anyone back to trial as many times as they want until people get tired enough to vote guilty.

It won't matter if you are innocent if the courts believe you are guilty as they can just keep you in the system and on the stand until "Guilty" is reached...no matter how long it takes.

At least that's what I understand from this?

So, "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer the law but rather "we say you're guilty and it doesn't matter what the jury of peers decide" will be the new norm.

Why am I not surprised?

No chance in hell if you are actually innocent. If they use the same jury, they'll get tired and lose income, family time etc and vote guilty so they can go home. If it's a new jury, they will no doubt have heard of the case and be tainted.

All this = Screwed

Peace

reply to post by jude11


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

Another scary slippery slope scaled.

Something I didn't know, and that I find highly enlightening: Sotomayor is "the only former trial court judge on the Supreme Court bench." That alone is one of the scariest pieces of information I can imagine.

Boy are we ever f---ed!

Originally posted by jude11

It won't matter if you are innocent if the courts believe you are guilty as they can just keep you in the system and on the stand until "Guilty" is reached...no matter how long it takes.

At least that's what I understand from this?

Peace

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

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.

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

Ahem... Well said.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
Another scary slippery slope scaled.

Something I didn't know, and that I find highly enlightening: Sotomayor is "the only former trial court judge on the Supreme Court bench." That alone is one of the scariest pieces of information I can imagine.

Boy are we ever f---ed!

edit on 6/5/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)

Thats unbelievable! How could these judges not have been formal trial court judges?!

I like this quote from Sotomayor:

"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."

from one of the articles above

It may be time to seriously think about applying to other countries for political asylum. I don't know if it would work, but it might be worth a shot to try it with things like this happening every day.

Originally posted by Nspekta

Originally posted by jude11

It won't matter if you are innocent if the courts believe you are guilty as they can just keep you in the system and on the stand until "Guilty" is reached...no matter how long it takes.

At least that's what I understand from this?

Peace

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

So...yes is the answer then.

Same man, Same charges, Same evidence means Same trial...exactly.

Unless I've missed something this is just another step towards "You have absolutely no rights in America"

Damn, this is getting scary.

Peace

FYI Judge Napolitano says, "This has never happened before in American history" Sadly, America is being transformed away from a Constitutional Republic founded upon Liberty and Justice into a tin pot marxist-socialist dictatorship of tyranny.

Well, actually the supreme court may be right here. With a hung jury, the trial has to be repeated. Jury deliberations were never completed. Even though he was acquitted on the first 2 charges, that particular trial was null and void. He gets to start all over again. Thus no double jeopardy.

So the title of this thread is wrong. Please don't jump to conclusions here folks! I repeat, there is no double jeopardy!

Isn't a loop hole exactly that a loop hole, sucks but they are there for those in the know to exploit until closed.
What I got from that was it isn't DJ because the jury never ruled on anything it was declared a miss trial so he was going back on trial again anyway regardless of if the 2 higher charges were included or not.
If I'm wrong then sorry but a miss trial does mean another trial not acquittal in the US doesn't it?
I have a problem with DJ anyway & think it's a principal that should be replaced with something that allows for mitigating circumstances to be brought forward to a panel who then decide if someone can be retried as long as it's an open process & not abused.

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.

I must thank you for the thread, although the content is one of the
few most unsettling revelations that I've ever seen on ATS! The decision
of the Court has indeed struck at the heart of prosecutional diligence
and the people's protection.. what I fear more than anything is how an
individual can now be brought in and stuck in the cooker until he gets
the treatment intended. It amounts to the State keeping on pounding
away until they get the results they want, regardless of the supposedly
singular burden of proof! I'm no lawyer but it's obvious to even me that
when circumstantial evidence can't elicit a guilty verdict because of
either intent or some other factor, it no longer matters. God help us.

His first trial, the verdicts were never issued; though they were expressed and were in the defendants favor. The thing is, there was never a judgement on them and a mistrial was declared.

When the charges were reapplied and he was re prosecuted, that is when the defendant cried foul.

The question is then, is it really "double jeopardy"? The defendant was never given judgement in the first case even though the jury had come to an agreement on the charges. But under State law, the whole of the case needed to be examined and not each individual charge.

If anything, it seems the judge here botched it up by not at least hearing the verdict on each individual charge before declaring a mistrial.

As with many Supreme Court cases, one has to look what was actually being examined and know the issue at hand: Point being, the court wasn't trying to declare the 5th Amendment (or "double jeopardy" clause) to be under examination. What was looked at was Arkansas State law and Justice Roberts puts it this way:

"As permitted under Arkansas law, the jury's options in this case were limited to two: either convict on one of the offenses, or acquit on all...[T]he jury in this case did not convict Blueford of any offense, but it did not acquit him of any either..."

Also, this defendants lawyer screwed the pooch when they didn't demand at least some sort of verdict on any of the charges in the first case.

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.

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

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.

Agreed, but the point here is that the jury did declare him not guilty of the higher charges, it wasnt noted, and now he will be retried on those same charges he was already declared not guilty of by a jury. They couldnt make the higher charges stick, and the jury couldnt devide on the lesser charges. Shouldnt the retrial only include the lesser charges?