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

They did not find him not guilty it was a mistrial and retrying him did not violate the 5th amendment.
I was actually ready to get PO'd when I read the OP title but after reading the details, It made sense.
This happens all the time, its not isolated to this case, I dont even see how this is an issue

reply to post by Xcathdra


I think you are missing the point here. YES, a mistrial was delcared and yes the technicalities of the court are going to allow him to be retried on the same charges.. my point is guess is:

IS this right?! His jury delcared him not guilty on those charges, and yes, the way the system works he will be retried. SO YES it is double jeopardy, but since you are siding with the system, its just a way of getting past the 5th and retrying him. I agree that a mistrial was called and therefore the system says that whatever happens in that trial doesnt count.. but is that right?! is that fair? He proved himself not guilty of capital and first degree, and now he has to do it all over again because the SYSTEM says so

Originally posted by Nspekta
His jury delcared him not guilty on those charges, and yes, the way the system works he will be retried.

Again its irrelevent if they found him not guilty, or even guilty, on part of the charges. As has been stated there were a bunch of other charges the jury could not decide on. Our judicial system is not piecemeal, its all or nothing when it comes to the charges.

By not reaching verdicts on all of the charges, the trial is overwith - mistrial by hung jury.

The prosecutor has the ability to refile the charges and try it again because there was NO verdict in the first trial on ALL of the charges.

It is not double jeopardy as there was no conclusion to the first trial.

reply to post by Nspekta


It is unbelievable to me how dense and uneducated people.

2nd

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Nspekta
His jury delcared him not guilty on those charges, and yes, the way the system works he will be retried.

Again its irrelevent if they found him not guilty, or even guilty, on part of the charges. As has been stated there were a bunch of other charges the jury could not decide on. Our judicial system is not piecemeal, its all or nothing when it comes to the charges.

By not reaching verdicts on all of the charges, the trial is overwith - mistrial by hung jury.

The prosecutor has the ability to refile the charges and try it again because there was NO verdict in the first trial on ALL of the charges.

It is not double jeopardy as there was no conclusion to the first trial.

Thank you for RE-stating how the system works AGAIN.., what I AM SAYING is,

Does it seem right that he was found by the jury and stated openly in court that he was not guilty of those two charges, and due to the mistrial he will be forced to prove his innocence again!?
I understand how the system works, WHAT I AM SAYING is:

Is it JUST that he has to prove himself over again? Please don't quote me how the system works again.. give me your opinion. If it was you, would you be upset? I think you would... a jury says you are notguilty, and it doesnt matter because of technicalities and court procedure, and now you have to prove it all over again.

What happens IF in the re-trial, it happens again? The jury finds him not guilty of the major crimes and are hung again on the lower chrages, YET, the court deems its either charge him with everything or nothing.. jury is hung again and its another retrial? the way i see it, it could go on indefinitely, with this man constantly proving his innocence on the higher charges over and over again

Originally posted by Submarines
reply to post by Nspekta

 

It is unbelievable to me how dense and uneducated people.

.... are? can be? will be? I have a friend named Mr. Pot if you would like to meet him Mr. Kettle.

But for sake of discussion, in what manner do you find people dense regarding this topic? In what ways are they uneducated? Don't make a claim without being brave enough to call people out on it.

reply to post by Nspekta


Yes it seems right because thats how our system is designed to work. As has been stated time and time again the 2 charges the jury agreed on is irrelevent because of the remaining charges they could not agree on. The person was not found not guilty, something people seem to have a hard time accepting.

There was no verdict issued in terms of all the charges, meaning there was no conclusion to the trial, meaning there is no double jeopardy to retry him.

I understand what you are saying... I am saying yes, it is fair that the person can be retried for the crimes since there was no LEGAL conclusion to his first trial in terms of guilt or innocence. Its a hung jury and a mis trial.

Didn't they more or less do this with Blagojevich, the jury was hung or voted not guilty, than prosecutors vowed to appeal, which is basically double jeopardy. Also with John Edwards beind found not guilty, they may use these cover story political scandals to get the public to favor double jeopardy. 'if the justice system fails, you can always try, try, again.'

And you know why they are doing this, right? So when KSM is found not guilty they can try, try again.

Do you doubt they are this pathetic?

Oh, and Casey Anthony was found not guilty, imagine how many tv heads would love to see Anthony tried again. Not that she would be, but it sets the stage for people to vote away their rights.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Nspekta

 

Yes it seems right because thats how our system is designed to work. As has been stated time and time again the 2 charges the jury agreed on is irrelevent because of the remaining charges they could not agree on. The person was not found not guilty, something people seem to have a hard time accepting.

There was no verdict issued in terms of all the charges, meaning there was no conclusion to the trial, meaning there is no double jeopardy to retry him.

I understand what you are saying... I am saying yes, it is fair that the person can be retried for the crimes since there was no LEGAL conclusion to his first trial in terms of guilt or innocence. Its a hung jury and a mis trial.

Lets just say that at some point in your life, this situation happens to you (im not hoping for that! Im just saying, put yourself in his shoes). You are tried on these charges, you hear, first hand, that the jury has decided that you are clear of capital and 1st degree, but due to the way the system works, you are to be re-tried again on those same charges?!. I guarantee you would be upset, and feel the same as this guy! Its like double jeopardy is being sanctioned because of technicalities within the justice system!!

reply to post by Lord Jules


His trial resulted in a hung jury as well. He was retried, as this person can be, and was found guilty.

reply to post by Nspekta


I would not be upset because I am familiar with how the law and system work. If they found me not guilty the first go around then they will find me not guilty the second go around.

reply to post by Nspekta

From your link:

Roberts concluded, "The jury did not convict Blueford of any offense, but it did not acquit him of any either … The Double Jeopardy Clause does not stand in the way of a second trial on the same offenses."

Does that clear anything up?

peace

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Nspekta

 

I would not be upset because I am familiar with how the law and system work. If they found me not guilty the first go around then they will find me not guilty the second go around.

You're right in the fact that they wont (most likely) find him guilty of the same higher charges in his re-trial. However, from your statement you basically describe double jeopardy! They found you not guilty the FIRST time, and wont the SECOND time. DOUBLE JEOPARDY right there!!
Do you see that regardless of the finding you not guilty once, you still have to prove your innocence AGAIN?!? And as i said before, what happens when the jury hangs up again on lesser charges? Mistrial again right? The way i see it, they could essentially keep trying this guy again and again because they dont have a strong enough case to find him guilty on the higher charges, and to prove the point, because a jury ALREADY deemed him innocent!

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Nspekta

 

From your link:

Roberts concluded, "The jury did not convict Blueford of any offense, but it did not acquit him of any either … The Double Jeopardy Clause does not stand in the way of a second trial on the same offenses."

Does that clear anything up?

peace

Thx, it has already been posted and discussed. The issue has turned away from the 'technicalities' of the system to the fairness of this happening, regardless of how the system is set-up.

reply to post by Nspekta


They did not find him not guilty.. Im not sure what the malfunction is on understanding how this works but ium tired of spelling it out for you.

There was NO offical result in the trial. There was no verdict - period.

Refiling charges in this case is not double jeopardy. I have stated it, Silo has stated it, many others have stated it, and the US Supreme Court has stated it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Nspekta

 

They did not find him not guilty.. Im not sure what the malfunction is on understanding how this works but ium tired of spelling it out for you.

There was NO offical result in the trial. There was no verdict - period.

Refiling charges in this case is not double jeopardy. I have stated it, Silo has stated it, many others have stated it, and the US Supreme Court has stated it.

Great! No OFFICIAL result, im not disputing that! What im trying to get across is that, imo, its still double jeo cause the jury stated he wasnt guilty, regardless of what was officially noted. He must prove his innocence again. Im not sure what else to say other than do you see the flaw in the system as i do? Obvi i cant make you see my point of view, and thats cool. Im trying to explain my point of view and you keep throwing in the official no verdict... Yup you are right, the jury deemed him innocent but it wasnt officially noted. So he gets tried again... Can you not see what im saying?

*ps, im sick of spelling my point out to you too... Looks like its a case of agree to disagree

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.

Originally posted by jude11
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

edit on 5-6-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)

Well said - unless the defendent is allowed to "take the 5th" and tell the jurry he was already acquitted. Surly of 12 jurrors there's someone there that actually knows what it says and will due their duty to uphold the constitution 1st and foremost.

www.fija.org
+
Of course I'm amazed that fija.org is even necessary to tell the idiot-masses they have that responsibility while corrupt judges set rules preventing any mention of nullification or rational for it to any jury. The system is designed to enslave more prisoners into jails for their big-corporate buddies who give them kickbacks.

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.

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.