11 ms·

This was the third trial. The first two were declared mistrials. So yes, certainly makes one wonder.

yieldcrv 4y ago
The government can do infinite retrials, starving you of resources to maintain adequate representation I think we need greater protections against this And the dual sovereignty loophole in our protection against double jeopardy should be addressed as well
- panda-giddiness 4y ago
  No, they can't. If the defendant is acquitted, that's the end of the line (barring a few dual sovereignty loopholes, as you mentioned, but those also aren't limitless).
  - goodluckchuck 4y ago
    Only an acquittal, meaning the jury agreed that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One mistrial makes sense. Perhaps there was someone with doubts, but those doubts were unreasonable. Or there was one person who believed the accused was guilty and that person was unreasonable. This could be fixed with a new jury. After two mistrials (for failure to reach a consensus) it’d appear that reasonable minds may differ and the case must not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
    - ianhawes 4y ago
      Often times, when a mistrial is declared and a retrial occurs, prosecutors will change strategy. Additionally, rulings from the previous trial are not automatically carried over, so suppressed evidence (for example) can be potentially displayed during a trial if the judge rules differently. Another factor, which is more common in state courts, is the lesser charge consideration. Upon a retrial, the judge can instruct the jury to find a defendant guilty of a lesser crime in lieu of the originally charged crime. For example, manslaughter instead of murder. Overall it’s obviously stacked against the defendant in federal court. Adding in unlimited retrials basically guarantees a defendant will be found guilty eventually.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        Don't you just love how first you learn about the Bill of Rights, and then you learn that there's a bullshit loophole our judicial system uses to bypass every goddamn rule in the entire Bill of Rights?
        md_ 4y ago
        I mean, there are a ton of problems with the criminal justice system, but white, well-off defendants who can afford non-court-appointed lawyers getting convicted after a single mistrial isn't really top of the list, is it? I read https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-case-of-a-cia-hackers-revenge https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-ca... and, well, this guy's not exactly a poster child for "the system is out to get you." I think the "our system is rigged" argument is a bit more compelling when looking at, say, the mandatory minimum sentences for crack possession.
        jjoonathan 4y ago
        How on Earth is "other people have it worse" supposed to be some kind of counterargument? No shit other people have it worse. I'd put Speedy and Public Trial and Due Process (Civil Asset Forfeiture) problems as the top of the list, with Double Jeopardy erosion a ways down. Mandatory minimums sound like they belong on the list too, but I'm not familiar enough to know exactly where to place them -- probably high on the list. In any case, one bad thing on a list certainly does not invalidate another bad thing on the list. That's an even more dogshit idea than the loopholes themselves. > this guy's not exactly a poster child Standing up for rights means standing up for bastards. Always has, always will, because that's when rights get tested.
        from 4y ago
        Interestingly, the federalists tried to argue against the Bill of Rights by essentially saying if an individual right was not mentioned in the Bill of Rights than that omission could set a precedent that the individual did not have that right. Of course now we know that everything that isn’t explicitly protected has been taken from us so I guess it’s good they ultimately lost that debate. On a somewhat positive note, there are things like the Speedy Trial Act that mandate charges be dismissed if a trial is not brought quickly enough. But it’s often not very effective because they are allowed to delay the trial basically indefinitely if the judge finds it is in the “ends of justice” to do so. There also have been major cases thrown out over Brady (evidence disclosure) violations recently which is a step in the right direction. I think defendants now probably have more rights than they ever did but the problem is that 1) there are way more laws to break today than ever before 2) federal prosecutors are less interested in the public good and more in their political ambitions and careers instead 3) good legal representation has become incredibly expensive.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    If acquitted or convicted correct But a hung jury can be retried infinitely I think hung should be just as good as acquittal, or at least ONE other try or something different than potentially infinite retries until the prosecutor gets a tap on the shoulder to move on
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - md_ 4y ago
      Plenty of other countries allow conviction by simple or supermajorities. I'm far from a punitive-justice kind of person, but arguing that a single dissenting juror should be sufficient to acquit strikes me as not at all obvious. As long as I can convince one in twelve that I'm innocent, I should be considered innocent?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - jxcole 4y ago
        Having been on a jury in the US one time (attempted murder), the purpose of this system is probably not at all obvious. The idea is to put 12 people in a room and force them to agree to the same thing. You can deliberate almost any amount of time you want. If you try to tell the judge after a single day of delibrations that you are a hung jury, the judge will force you to stay longer. Only in extreme cases where the jury has been hung for a very long time does the judge allow a mistrial. So the idea is to force 12 people to convince each other of one idea or the other.
        chasil 4y ago
        In the final play of the Orestia trilogy by Aeschylus, the goddess Athena convenes a jury of twelve citizens to decide the guilt of Orestes in the murder of his mother, Clytemnestra. The jury is evenly split, and Athena adds a final vote for innocence, calling it her precedent. It is unfortunate that the United States did not follow this ancient judicial custom EDIT: to acquit if half the jury refuses to convict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresteia#The_Eumenides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresteia#The_Eumenides (I live in a midsize U.S. town that happens to have the oldest community theater that performs Greek plays in mask every year.)
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    I think the point is, while there are limits, most of those will last longer than the resources anyone would have to defend themselves. It doesn't have to be limitless, only a bit longer than anyone can "survive".
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      This guy got a hung jury on his first trial with a public defender. The government was paying for his defense.
  - R0b0t1 4y ago
    They can intentionally mess up the trial, or refuse to prosecute. There are people who get swept up in some old but reopened case investigation launched by a DA that wants to look tough. Trail might have died 10 years ago with essentially an acquittal, but it can be set up so it can be reopened at any point.
    - saghm 4y ago
      I think judges are allowed to dismiss cases "with prejudice" (i.e. not allow for a retrial), and I feel like this _should_ be done if the prosecution purposely punts to try again later, but I'm not sure how often this happens in practice
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  "The government can do infinite retrials, starving you of resources to maintain adequate representation" I remember reading about a guy who had 5 or 6 trials for murder. The prosecutor just kept trying.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    You would have to give more details, because in general, that's the very definition of double jeopardy. Was it five or six hung juries?
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Flowers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Flowers is one example. Convicted four times, but with conviction overturned on appeal (including one time to the Supreme Court), plus two mistrials. The new DA declined to seek a seventh trial.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        Ah, that makes more sense. It isn't double-jeopardy when a conviction is remanded for re-trial (although why it's not is unclear to me in a common-sense sense).
        NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        You usually cannot appeal simply on the basis that you believe the jury made the wrong decision, i.e. on the basis of an error of fact. There has to be an error of law (e.g. the judge have a wrong jury instruction, or evidence was inappropriately allowed/excluded, or the trial was allowed to continue when a mistrial should have been declared) or other constitutional basis, like ineffective counsel. In some cases, appeal courts will decide that there could be no basis for conviction once the flaw is corrected (in which case a conviction can be reversed), but oftentimes the appropriate outcome is to remand the case back to the lower court for retrial.
  - 4y ago
yellow_lead 4y ago
Two mistrials? Sounds like justice /s
giaour 4y ago
The article claims that this was the second trial, not his third. He was convicted on some counts in his first trial, but the jury was hung on the Espionage Act charges: > This was the second trial against Schulte. In March 2020, his first trial ended in a mistrial on several Espionage Act charges, but he was found guilty of contempt of court and lying to the FBI.
- sha256sum 4y ago
  You are correct, there were two trials. In the first, the jury convicted him of 1) contempt of court and 2) making false statements to the FBI. > In March 9, 2020, after hearing four weeks of testimony and deliberating for six days, the jury convicted Schulte on two counts: contempt of court and making false statements to the FBI. However, jurors were deadlocked on eight other counts, including the most serious of illegal gathering and transmission of national defense information. Although the judge declared a mistrial, the government chose to retry the case.

The government can do infinite retrials, starving you of resources to maintain adequate representation I think we need greater protections against this And the dual sovereignty loophole in our protection against double jeopardy should be addressed as well

panda-giddiness 4y ago
No, they can't. If the defendant is acquitted, that's the end of the line (barring a few dual sovereignty loopholes, as you mentioned, but those also aren't limitless).
- goodluckchuck 4y ago
  Only an acquittal, meaning the jury agreed that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One mistrial makes sense. Perhaps there was someone with doubts, but those doubts were unreasonable. Or there was one person who believed the accused was guilty and that person was unreasonable. This could be fixed with a new jury. After two mistrials (for failure to reach a consensus) it’d appear that reasonable minds may differ and the case must not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
  - ianhawes 4y ago
    Often times, when a mistrial is declared and a retrial occurs, prosecutors will change strategy. Additionally, rulings from the previous trial are not automatically carried over, so suppressed evidence (for example) can be potentially displayed during a trial if the judge rules differently. Another factor, which is more common in state courts, is the lesser charge consideration. Upon a retrial, the judge can instruct the jury to find a defendant guilty of a lesser crime in lieu of the originally charged crime. For example, manslaughter instead of murder. Overall it’s obviously stacked against the defendant in federal court. Adding in unlimited retrials basically guarantees a defendant will be found guilty eventually.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      Don't you just love how first you learn about the Bill of Rights, and then you learn that there's a bullshit loophole our judicial system uses to bypass every goddamn rule in the entire Bill of Rights?
      - md_ 4y ago
        I mean, there are a ton of problems with the criminal justice system, but white, well-off defendants who can afford non-court-appointed lawyers getting convicted after a single mistrial isn't really top of the list, is it? I read https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-case-of-a-cia-hackers-revenge https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-ca... and, well, this guy's not exactly a poster child for "the system is out to get you." I think the "our system is rigged" argument is a bit more compelling when looking at, say, the mandatory minimum sentences for crack possession.
        jjoonathan 4y ago
        How on Earth is "other people have it worse" supposed to be some kind of counterargument? No shit other people have it worse. I'd put Speedy and Public Trial and Due Process (Civil Asset Forfeiture) problems as the top of the list, with Double Jeopardy erosion a ways down. Mandatory minimums sound like they belong on the list too, but I'm not familiar enough to know exactly where to place them -- probably high on the list. In any case, one bad thing on a list certainly does not invalidate another bad thing on the list. That's an even more dogshit idea than the loopholes themselves. > this guy's not exactly a poster child Standing up for rights means standing up for bastards. Always has, always will, because that's when rights get tested.
        from 4y ago
        Interestingly, the federalists tried to argue against the Bill of Rights by essentially saying if an individual right was not mentioned in the Bill of Rights than that omission could set a precedent that the individual did not have that right. Of course now we know that everything that isn’t explicitly protected has been taken from us so I guess it’s good they ultimately lost that debate. On a somewhat positive note, there are things like the Speedy Trial Act that mandate charges be dismissed if a trial is not brought quickly enough. But it’s often not very effective because they are allowed to delay the trial basically indefinitely if the judge finds it is in the “ends of justice” to do so. There also have been major cases thrown out over Brady (evidence disclosure) violations recently which is a step in the right direction. I think defendants now probably have more rights than they ever did but the problem is that 1) there are way more laws to break today than ever before 2) federal prosecutors are less interested in the public good and more in their political ambitions and careers instead 3) good legal representation has become incredibly expensive.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  If acquitted or convicted correct But a hung jury can be retried infinitely I think hung should be just as good as acquittal, or at least ONE other try or something different than potentially infinite retries until the prosecutor gets a tap on the shoulder to move on
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - md_ 4y ago
    Plenty of other countries allow conviction by simple or supermajorities. I'm far from a punitive-justice kind of person, but arguing that a single dissenting juror should be sufficient to acquit strikes me as not at all obvious. As long as I can convince one in twelve that I'm innocent, I should be considered innocent?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jxcole 4y ago
      Having been on a jury in the US one time (attempted murder), the purpose of this system is probably not at all obvious. The idea is to put 12 people in a room and force them to agree to the same thing. You can deliberate almost any amount of time you want. If you try to tell the judge after a single day of delibrations that you are a hung jury, the judge will force you to stay longer. Only in extreme cases where the jury has been hung for a very long time does the judge allow a mistrial. So the idea is to force 12 people to convince each other of one idea or the other.
      - chasil 4y ago
        In the final play of the Orestia trilogy by Aeschylus, the goddess Athena convenes a jury of twelve citizens to decide the guilt of Orestes in the murder of his mother, Clytemnestra. The jury is evenly split, and Athena adds a final vote for innocence, calling it her precedent. It is unfortunate that the United States did not follow this ancient judicial custom EDIT: to acquit if half the jury refuses to convict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresteia#The_Eumenides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresteia#The_Eumenides (I live in a midsize U.S. town that happens to have the oldest community theater that performs Greek plays in mask every year.)
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  I think the point is, while there are limits, most of those will last longer than the resources anyone would have to defend themselves. It doesn't have to be limitless, only a bit longer than anyone can "survive".
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    This guy got a hung jury on his first trial with a public defender. The government was paying for his defense.
- R0b0t1 4y ago
  They can intentionally mess up the trial, or refuse to prosecute. There are people who get swept up in some old but reopened case investigation launched by a DA that wants to look tough. Trail might have died 10 years ago with essentially an acquittal, but it can be set up so it can be reopened at any point.
  - saghm 4y ago
    I think judges are allowed to dismiss cases "with prejudice" (i.e. not allow for a retrial), and I feel like this _should_ be done if the prosecution purposely punts to try again later, but I'm not sure how often this happens in practice
spaetzleesser 4y ago
"The government can do infinite retrials, starving you of resources to maintain adequate representation" I remember reading about a guy who had 5 or 6 trials for murder. The prosecutor just kept trying.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  You would have to give more details, because in general, that's the very definition of double jeopardy. Was it five or six hung juries?
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Flowers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Flowers is one example. Convicted four times, but with conviction overturned on appeal (including one time to the Supreme Court), plus two mistrials. The new DA declined to seek a seventh trial.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Ah, that makes more sense. It isn't double-jeopardy when a conviction is remanded for re-trial (although why it's not is unclear to me in a common-sense sense).
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        You usually cannot appeal simply on the basis that you believe the jury made the wrong decision, i.e. on the basis of an error of fact. There has to be an error of law (e.g. the judge have a wrong jury instruction, or evidence was inappropriately allowed/excluded, or the trial was allowed to continue when a mistrial should have been declared) or other constitutional basis, like ineffective counsel. In some cases, appeal courts will decide that there could be no basis for conviction once the flaw is corrected (in which case a conviction can be reversed), but oftentimes the appropriate outcome is to remand the case back to the lower court for retrial.
- 4y ago

yellow_lead 4y ago

Two mistrials? Sounds like justice /s

giaour 4y ago

The article claims that this was the second trial, not his third. He was convicted on some counts in his first trial, but the jury was hung on the Espionage Act charges: > This was the second trial against Schulte. In March 2020, his first trial ended in a mistrial on several Espionage Act charges, but he was found guilty of contempt of court and lying to the FBI.

sha256sum 4y ago
You are correct, there were two trials. In the first, the jury convicted him of 1) contempt of court and 2) making false statements to the FBI. > In March 9, 2020, after hearing four weeks of testimony and deliberating for six days, the jury convicted Schulte on two counts: contempt of court and making false statements to the FBI. However, jurors were deadlocked on eight other counts, including the most serious of illegal gathering and transmission of national defense information. Although the judge declared a mistrial, the government chose to retry the case.