Double jeopardy being decided by SCOTUS

[Westside]

A man accused of murder received a mistrial as the result of a hung jury. But because the "forewoman" of the jury "SAID" the jury unanimously aggreed not guilty on 1st degree murder or capitol murder but hung on a lesser charge of man slaughter during the trial that he can not be retried on all three charges but only on the lesser charge. all the lower courts ruled with the state that it is not double jeopardy because of the mistrial.

High court to decide double jeopardy question - Yahoo! News

ok INGO what are your thoughts? I may decide to add a pole later.

*EDIT: here is the brief filed with the supreme court.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/09-26-Blueford-BIO.pdf

NOTE: There was no ruling on any of the charges the official court ruling is a hung jury on all charges. The "unanimous agreement" was only mentioned in informal dialog between the jury forewoman and the Judge.

Link to all the supreme court docs related to this case.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/blueford-v-state-of-arkansas/

 

[ATOMonkey]

I agree that if you are aquitted of a charge, then that should be that.

Any ensuing trial should only involve charges that were undecided in the first trial.

Personally, I think only one charge should be brought per offense.

If I run someone over with my car, I don't think it right that the prosecutor should file for everything from murder one on down hoping that something sticks, so that he can get a W. That's not really justice, is it? I dunno.

 

[Fargo]

IMO, he is likely to win at the federal level. Since unanimous verdicts were found on those two counts, I don't see how there was actually a mistrial on them. Arkansas must have some goofy procedures on how they do a jury trial/verdict for this to have even happened. Normally, those two verdicts would enter with a mistrial declared on the remaining count. This whole "offhand remark" bit makes it look like the trial court failed to properly inquire as to what, if any, counts had a unanimous verdict.

I'm not a lawyer in Arkansas so I don't know how they do things down there but I would be mightily surprised if the SCOTUS allowed him to be retried on counts where there was a unanimous jury verdict to acquit.

Best,

Joe

 

[Westside]

Please see the edit as important Details have been added to the OP.

There was never and "official" not guilty verdict delivered from the jury. But rather an "informal dialog" between the judge and the forewoman of the jury.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Well, if there was nothing official, then it sounds like do-over to me.

 

[Expat]

I agree with ATO, they get a Mulligan.

 

[Westside]

I am with you guys. I posted and continued to hunt for the court records, then edited when I found the important docs.

whatever was said doesn't matter the only thing that matters is the official record.

 

[ATOMonkey]

You'd think people would take a murder trial a little more serious.

Judge: Well, how did ya'll find?

Forewoman: We found him aquitted of some stuff, but we can't make heads or tails of the rest yer on'er.

Judge: CASE DISMISSED!!! [BANG!!]

 

[Expat]

You'd think people would take a murder trial a little more serious.

Judge: Well, how did ya'll find?

Forewoman: We found him aquitted of some stuff, but we can't make heads or tails of the rest yer on'er.

Judge: CASE DISMISSED!!! [BANG!!]

Don't go hatin' there Yankee boy.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Don't go hatin' there Yankee boy.

lol!! I haven't been called a yankee since spring break my senior year!

I guess I've been spending too much time around Chicago.