3 ms·

Wow this case is just so weird: - convicted based on weapon only? Isn't that just an indirect proof? - 2nd trial after the first one was a mistrial - I though

by yread 13y ago

Wow this case is just so weird: - convicted based on weapon only? Isn't that just an indirect proof? - 2nd trial after the first one was a mistrial - I thought you can only be tried once?! - convicted 15 years after it happened - isn't there a time bar? - the whole miranda business - when they arrested Tsarnaev, they didn't read him his rights and people just assumed he had them anyway. This guy apparently didn't have them until they read it. So, if they don't read them you either have them if they won't read them to you ever or don't have them if they will read them in some unspecified point in the future? I think I'll just stay out of Texas for a while. EDIT: also "did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon" what kind of idiotic question is that?! "Excuse me sir, does your weapon match with the murder weapon?" "Yes, it does, officer!"

hga 13y ago
Sufficiently strong circumstantial evidence has long been enough to convict. You can only be tried once, by both a state or subdivision, and the feds, "on the same set of facts", if a verdict of innocence is rendered. In a mistrial, the trial is ended for whatever reason without a verdict of any sort being rendered, generally the judge prematurely ends it because of a procedural issue or the jury deadlocks. The prohibition against double jeopardy (which the courts have determined does not extend to both a state and a federal prosecution each, e.g. see the Rodney King debacle) is to prevent the authorities from trying you again and again until they get a jury to come to the "right" decision, and this decreases the problem of "the process is the punishment". Also protects you from a better prosecution after you reveal your (successful) defense the first time.

3 ms·

Wow this case is just so weird: - convicted based on weapon only? Isn't that just an indirect proof? - 2nd trial after the first one was a mistrial - I though

by yread 13y ago

hga 13y ago
Sufficiently strong circumstantial evidence has long been enough to convict. You can only be tried once, by both a state or subdivision, and the feds, "on the same set of facts", if a verdict of innocence is rendered. In a mistrial, the trial is ended for whatever reason without a verdict of any sort being rendered, generally the judge prematurely ends it because of a procedural issue or the jury deadlocks. The prohibition against double jeopardy (which the courts have determined does not extend to both a state and a federal prosecution each, e.g. see the Rodney King debacle) is to prevent the authorities from trying you again and again until they get a jury to come to the "right" decision, and this decreases the problem of "the process is the punishment". Also protects you from a better prosecution after you reveal your (successful) defense the first time.