At 3/12/18 04:08 PM, Entice wrote:
How did you decide what "the way it's supposed to go" is, objectively? If there's a mistrial or some sort of obvious error they can be retried in some cases, but that didn't happen in this case.
How about one retrial allowed within one year of the original if noteworthy evidence surfaces related to the case and the case is of a serious nature, for example murder? Good to know about retrial potential in the case of error, but it really seems like there should be a possibility for retrial if, say, they find a surveillance camera with footage of said crime that clearly proves their guilt. Not applicable in this particular case, but just seems very strange such a thing wouldn't have an impact at all on said person's judicial judgment...
I think that's overstating things a little. He had some advantages, like a more expensive lawyer, but it's not like there was corruption. He didn't bride anyone. He was just went to trial and ended up being acquitted.
Double jeopardy protection is a constitutional right, it can't just be selectively applied to people.
Hmm, actually, reading up on the double jeapordy protection it seems there's a bit of a loophole in that: Double jeopardy protection only defends individuals against prosecution for the same offense, but what constitutes the same offense? State and federal courts apply a multitude of tests to determine whether the same facts have already been litigated, whether the “actual evidence” has already been presented in court, whether all the criminal acts were part of the “same transaction,” or whether the defendant is being re-prosecuted for the “same conduct.”
So, basically, if new evidence does surface that might be considered a new offense, depending on said evidence? in this case I'm OK with how this works after all, though that loophole seems prone to potential abuse by, as you say, people with a lot of resources and intent on getting a particular someone convicted...
