Double Jeopardy Redefined???

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
sodbuster95
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 6954
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:14 pm
Location: Maumee
Contact:

Re: Double Jeopardy Redefined???

Post by sodbuster95 »

Vex wrote:A verdict had not been rendered on the first two charges, and the jury was still permitted to deliberate on them. They could have changed their minds, and the official verdict was "mistrial" not "acquitted on some, mistrial on others." IMO, the court got it right, and I agree with the majority opinion.
Agreed. I understand Napolitano's point but he's wrong. Frankly, I think his opinion is more about whipping up fervor than defending anything about the Constitution. This wasn't a "clerical" error based on the judge "forgetting" to write something down; the simple fact is that the verdict was not rendered and deliberations were not over.

The only thing different in this case versus any other mistrial is that the defendant had the unusual opportunity to gain insight on the jury's thoughts while they were still deliberating. That's where the judge screwed up. As Werz already pointed out, he isn't supposed to ask that kind of question.

Napolitano is being more than a bit specious in his opinion. And he all but admitted than when said "I don't think this would affect cases that have already been closed."
NRA Benefactor Life Member

Information posted in these forums is my personal opinion only. It is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.
GWC
Posts: 4494
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Lake County 44077

Re: Double Jeopardy Redefined???

Post by GWC »

bignflnut wrote:
GWC wrote:
bignflnut wrote:Judge Napolitano on the ruling:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/24/ju ... der-trial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He is not an authority on anything, just a TV personality.

The court got it right.
Sorry, sir. I didn't mean to get you worked up by posting this video.
His point, if you value it or not, was that the jury had declared "not guilty", and that ends the trial. There was a clerical error that sent this to the SCOTUS and that the "double jeopardy" clause was added to address this very issue.
We live in a day and age where the concepts of due process, Posse Comitatus, and now double jeopardy is being reversed. Happy Memorial Day?

I am not worked up at all. The facts do not support his, or your opinion on this matter. When there is a mistrial there is no verdict, period. A mistrial means that legally, the trial did not happen. So if there is a mistrial, there is no double jeapordy when the defendent is retried.

This is not something new, in fact if the dissenters had prevailed they would have been changing the definition of double jeapordy, not the other way around.

Now a totally different issue is IF this is the way that double jeapordy should work. And judge Napalitano, as he often does, substitutes his personal opinion of what the law SHOULD be for what the law actually is. I often agree with those opinions, but that does not make them the law any more than when I disagree with him. In this particular case, I really don't have an opinion on that.

But the Supreme Court of the US is supposed to rule based on the law, the constitution and the precedents established by previous decisions, not by their personal opinions of what the law should be.

For too long, too many justices have done just that. Roberts, Thomas , Scalia and Alito have a pretty good record of following the constitution, the law and precedents. To make this rather large change (by making a mistrial count as a trial for double jeapordy purposes) would be as bad IF NOT WORSE than many of the instances rightfully deplored by US citizens when liberal justices substitute their opinions for the law and create nonexistent "rights" or disparage those rights explicitly protected by the constitution and/or natural law.

Precendents can overruled, but not lightly. This would be a very major change in american jurisprudence, and if it needs to be changed, it should be with a constitutional amendment, or at least an act of Congress, not by the whim of 5 justices.
"The police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve disorder".
Mayor Richard Daley, 1968

I am not a lawyer. Nothing I say or write is legal advice.
GWC
Posts: 4494
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Lake County 44077

Re: Double Jeopardy Redefined???

Post by GWC »

wkdravenna wrote:
GWC wrote:
bignflnut wrote:Judge Napolitano on the ruling:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/24/ju ... der-trial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So what.

He is not an authority on anything, just a TV personality.

The court got it right.

There was a mistrial.

That means there was no verdict.

And that means there is no double jeapordy.

That is about as basic a question as you can get in constituitional law. The sad fact is that three justcies are so ignorant as to dissent. Of course, they dissent on their ideology, not on the law and the constitution.

Napalotanio was a judge on the Supreme Court of New Jersey. . . Thats like saying Terry Bradshaw has no buisness talking football hes just a tv personality.

Actually, no, he was not. He was a on the Superior Court of New Jersey, which is similar to the Common Pleas court in Ohio except in New jersey the judges are appointed and confirmed by the state senate for 7 year terms (and can have their terms extended if they are reappointed during their terms) and in Ohio we elect our judges.

If he had been on the New Jersey Supreme court his title would be Justice Napolitano.

He quit his job as a judge for a TV career, first as a TV judge on a show called Power of Attorney.

After that he became a commentator on FOX news, and still appears on Fox Business occassionally.

He is a strong advocate for the libertarian view of the world, at least his version of it. I, too consider myself a libertarian, but am not in lock step with his positions (big surprize). I often agree with him, but almost as often disagree. He often confuses his personal opinion of how he thinks the law should be with what the law actually is. This is yet another example of this tendency, which why I said, (and maintain as true) that his opinion is not authoritative in any way, and that he is not a judge, but a TV personality.
"The police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve disorder".
Mayor Richard Daley, 1968

I am not a lawyer. Nothing I say or write is legal advice.
Post Reply