14 ms·

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 lim

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.
  - tannhauser23 4y ago
    The defense also gets to retool its strategy in light of the evidence. Defense also gets to make evidentiary motions. Retrials don't always favor the prosecution. I think the most retrials I've seen (stemming from hung juries, not reversals) is the John Gotti Jr. case, where he got four mistrials. Prosecutors decided not to seek retrial after that.
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

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.
- tannhauser23 4y ago
  The defense also gets to retool its strategy in light of the evidence. Defense also gets to make evidentiary motions. Retrials don't always favor the prosecution. I think the most retrials I've seen (stemming from hung juries, not reversals) is the John Gotti Jr. case, where he got four mistrials. Prosecutors decided not to seek retrial after that.

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