USSC deletes one more constitutional protection

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
Double Jeopardy clause deleted from constitution

The Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas is not barred by the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause from retrying a man for murder even though the first jury had announced it was unanimously against the charge.

The Founders were well familiar with the habit of British Kings of repeated trials for the same offense. The British Parliament had established different courts with concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, an acquittal before the “Queen’s Bench” in London did not bar a trial for the same offense before the “Admiralty Court” in Boston. It was against this backdrop that the bar on double jeopardy was written into the Fifth Amendment. It’s very purpose was to prevent the very event that the Court has permitted today.

The Arkansas trial judge must have been a dope or a fool or a prosecutor in black robes. Once the jury foreperson stated that the jury unanimously rejected the capital murder charge, it was the judge’s affirmative duty to enter a verdict of not guilty formally on the record (orally) and then eventually, but quickly, in writing. His failure to do that is the hook in which the Supreme Court hung its hat for this profoundly unconstitutional, anti-historical, Stalinesque decision. As a matter of law, the defendant was acquitted of capital murder the moment the jury foreperson announced the jury’s verdict, whether the verdict was properly recorded or not.
Click to expand...

This case is about a technicality fault of the trial judge to enter the verdict as determined by the jury, unanimously, that the defendant was 'not guilty' of committing murder. Because the trial judge failed to do so, means that he can now be tried again for the same crime.
 
the dissent gets it absolutely right:

The Double Jeopardy Clause “unequivocally prohibits a
second trial following an acquittal.” Arizona v. Washington, 434 U. S. 497, 503 (1978). To implement this rule, our
cases have articulated two principles. First, an acquittal
occurs if a jury’s decision, “whatever its label, actually represents a resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the
factual elements of the offense charged.” United States v.
Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564, 571 (1977). Second, a trial judge may not defeat a defendant’s entitlement
to “the verdict of a tribunal he might believe to be favorably disposed to his fate” by declaring a mistrial before
deliberations end, absent a defendant’s consent or a
“‘manifest necessity’ ” to do so. United States v. Jorn, 400
U. S. 470, 486, 481 (1971) (plurality opinion) (quoting
United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580 (1824)).
Today’s decision misapplies these longstanding principles. The Court holds that petitioner Alex Blueford
was not acquitted of capital or first-degree murder, even
though the forewoman of the Arkansas jury empaneled to
try him announced in open court that the jury was “unanimous against” convicting Blueford of those crimes. Nor,
the Court concludes, did the Double Jeopardy Clause
oblige the trial judge to take any action to give effect to the
jury’s unambiguous decision before declaring a mistrial as
2 BLUEFORD v. ARKANSAS
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
to those offenses. The Court thus grants the State what
the Constitution withholds: “the proverbial ‘second bite at
the apple.’” Burks v. United States, 437 U. S. 1, 17 (1978).
I respectfully dissent.
Click to expand...

this is truly a stupid decision.
 
Yurt said:
the only options are to pass a constitutional amendment. or, wait until we have a different bench, find a case with the same or similar issue and raise it again.

scotus has overturned itself before.
Click to expand...
and until such time, we the people just have to deal our government ignoring their constitutional limits. why aren't we destroying this government again? and why are you and I the only ones posting about this? with the exception of damo and wiseone who would rather incarcerate everyone and themselves until innocence can be proven, that is.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and until such time, we the people just have to deal our government ignoring their constitutional limits. why aren't we destroying this government again? and why are you and I the only ones posting about this? with the exception of damo and wiseone who would rather incarcerate everyone and themselves until innocence can be proven, that is.
Click to expand...

1. i hardly think this case is worth destroying the government over. if you destroy the current government, you would put us into civil war...and for what? we have in place a method to overturn this ruling. changing the us constitution or waiting for a new bench. wouldn't changing the us constitution save more lives? if not enough states or people want to make the change....then haven't the people spoken?

2. most people don't care about legal issues that don't affect them. for that matter, any issue that doesn't affect them. that would be my guess.

3. i have no idea what you're last statement is talking about.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Double Jeopardy clause deleted from constitution



This case is about a technicality fault of the trial judge to enter the verdict as determined by the jury, unanimously, that the defendant was 'not guilty' of committing murder. Because the trial judge failed to do so, means that he can now be tried again for the same crime.
Click to expand...

would you be as upset if a guilty verdict was declared void on a technicality
 
Yurt said:
1. i hardly think this case is worth destroying the government over. if you destroy the current government, you would put us into civil war...and for what? we have in place a method to overturn this ruling. changing the us constitution or waiting for a new bench. wouldn't changing the us constitution save more lives? if not enough states or people want to make the change....then haven't the people spoken?
Click to expand...
for those that didn't study any history, this was just one step in how the crown would beat down the subjects. If it didn't get a verdict it liked in one court, it could simply try the case again in another court. one reason we dumped england. why change the constitution? the government didn't pay any attention to this one, what makes you think they'll pay attention to any other change we make?

Yurt said:
3. i have no idea what you're last statement is talking about.
Click to expand...
In another thread somewhere out here, wiseone and I got in to a debate about the framers intent on the judicial system. How they wanted it that it was better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent. wiseone most definitely felt that it was better to imprison 10 innocents than let one guilty person go free while Damo said he'd be ok with spending 10 years in prison if it meant putting away a child porn peddler.
 
Don Quixote said:
would you be as upset if a guilty verdict was declared void on a technicality
Click to expand...
depends on the technicality. for instance, the case in the OP is incompetence by the judge, allowing someone who's already been acquitted of a capital crime by a jury of his peers to be tried again. If it was a guilty verdict, i'd be just as upset at the judges incompetence.
 
SmarterthanYou;1007795]for those that didn't study any history, this was just one step in how the crown would beat down the subjects. If it didn't get a verdict it liked in one court, it could simply try the case again in another court. one reason we dumped england. why change the constitution? the government didn't pay any attention to this one, what makes you think they'll pay attention to any other change we make?
Click to expand...

so you prefer bloodshed? i prefer letting the people use the means we have in this country to make the change.

In another thread somewhere out here, wiseone and I got in to a debate about the framers intent on the judicial system. How they wanted it that it was better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent. wiseone most definitely felt that it was better to imprison 10 innocents than let one guilty person go free while Damo said he'd be ok with spending 10 years in prison if it meant putting away a child porn peddler.
Click to expand...

ok. didn't see that thread.
 
Yurt said:
so you prefer bloodshed? i prefer letting the people use the means we have in this country to make the change.
Click to expand...
the only problem with the people attempting to pursue peaceful means is that the government still has no problem using violence to continue oppressing we the people. My line in the sand just happens to be near the front of the crowd.
 
Ridiculous. The trial judge isn't the person who gets to decide whether or not another trial proceeds or not. Are we just going to make it standard procedure to "forget to enter" a not guilty verdict until the prosecution gets its way with the case?
 
good article on the courts ignoring double jeopardy.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/06/21/nor-twice-put-in-jeopardy.aspx

The founding fathers left much up for grabs in their wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but not in the double jeopardy clause. They said "twice." Not thrice, not as many times as needed to get a conviction, not until a jury of twelve is unanimous one way or another. Just twice. And everything since has dishonored their word.

I've argued long and hard, and to no avail, that the doctrinal construct around the double jeopardy clause is fundamentally wrong. The government gets one chance to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To do so, they must persuade twelve men good and true of guilt. If they fail to do so, what?

The United States Supreme Court has redefined twice to mean until twelve jurors reach unanimous agreement, whether of guilt or lack of guilt. Nowhere in the double jeopardy clause is there a proviso that unless there is unanimous agreement that a defendant is not guilty, the government can put a person in jeopardy again.

The inability of the government to convince the twelve of guilt means that they have put a person in jeopardy and failed to convict. That is their one shot at jeopardy. That even one person rejects the government's proof satisfies whatever claim to due process the government possesses. There is no burden on the defense to obtain a unanimous verdict from a jury of not guilty, yet the interpretation of double jeopardy does exactly that, subjecting the defendant to multiple jeopardy until some party has met the burden of unanimity.

http://hive.slate.com/hive/how-can-we-fix-constitution/article/playing-double-jeopardy



Theoretically, the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause is supposed to protect a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense. In practice, our constitutional protections against double jeopardy are anemic. One reason that’s true is because the Supreme Court has read the clause to allow the government to retry a defendant on a charge anytime the jury doesn’t reach unanimous agreement on a defendant’s innocence with respect to that charge.

This is unjustifiable. Unless there is evidence of their misconduct affecting the integrity of the initial trial, defendants who are not initially found guilty on a charge deserve finality and repose with respect to those charges. They shouldn’t be dependent on unilateral decisions by the government after they have already inspired some real doubt in a jury of their peers who have deliberated and failed to agree upon conviction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top