MuzzyField said:Wouldn't that be double jeopardy? Mistrial is the only way prosecution can retry, correct?
You generally can appeal acquittals in Civil Law countries (Continental Europe and anywhere colonized by those countries) and generally can't in Common Law Countries (England and most former British Colonies). Though England itself has allowed retrials on very serious crimes where substantial new evidence arises since 2003, whereas such a law would be flagrantly unconstitutional in the US.JohnnyK said:Seriously? The state cannot appeal an acquittal?
I'm not from the US, and here this is definitely possible.
Royal Reader said:You generally can appeal acquittals in Civil Law countries (Continental Europe and anywhere colonized by those countries) and generally can't in Common Law Countries (England and most former British Colonies). Though England itself has allowed retrials on very serious crimes where substantial new evidence arises since 2003, whereas such a law would be flagrantly unconstitutional in the US.
Scotland, bless its heart, allows retrial if a 'Not proven' verdict is rendered, but not in the case of a 'Not guilty' verdict.
SumnerH said:
Essentially yeah. The US is virtually unique in how strongly it prevents double jeopardy--if you're acquitted, the only way you can _maybe_ be retried is if it can be proven that you were never actually in jeopardy to begin with (e.g. the jury's families were kidnapped and threatened unless they acquit, the judge was bribed in a bench trial, something like that).
Another jurisdiction (state vs federal) can try you, though they're often reluctant to try people for the same offense (though it's not unheard of). You can definitely still be sued civilly (e.g. OJ's wrongful death case) or charged with another crime as long as it's not a lesser included offense of the first one (if you're acquitted of murder 1, you could be charged with violating someone's civil rights but probably not with murder 2, manslaughter, or battery).
FelixMantilla said:So when you you think we'll have a verdict?
I expect the longer is takes the better for Hernandez. Is that true?
Loger post upthread. But, if no split, today by close of day. If there's a holdout/split, who knows?FelixMantilla said:So when you you think we'll have a verdict?
I expect the longer is takes the better for Hernandez. Is that true?
smastroyin said:The jury have asked for a list of the exhibits. The defense has contended that the list must be reviewed for impartial language in the description. (i.e. no "video of Aaron Hernandez with the murder weapon.") So that might take a while to put together.
smastroyin said:Yeah, looks like the list was turned over around 1 PM? 439 exhibits, though. Presumably a big part of wanting the list is to go to the important ones, but maybe they also want to go through one by one.
To which another juror might respond "yes a little girl that, if we are to believe the defense that he was there but one of the other guys fired, he let play with said murder(s). Maybe she's better off..."Rovin Romine said:"But has a little girl. Let's make sure we're careful and do this for the right reasons. What about having just one more night to sleep on it after we see the video again?"
crystalline said:Above in this thread it sounded like people believed the weakness of the defense case, including changing course from the opening, was affected by certain evidence (SJ testimony?) surprising them. I know you said the state also benefits on retrial by seeing the defense's case, but in this case it sounds like the defense might benefit more from a retrial.
You and others have said that consistency from opening through closing is important for defense credibility, and they might do better at that on retrial. But point taken- probably this only matters at the margins, not when the evidence is so bad for the defendant.Rovin Romine said:
Perhaps it's best to view this case as being more or less fully developed. It may get cleaner on a retrial, but I don't see how it gets "better" for the defense beyond that. What's the new theory the defense will pursue?
Rovin Romine said:Done for the day. Jury's coming back tomorrow AM. They've deliberated for a total of 9 hours. Tomorrow will be their 3rd day of deliberations. (Although that's somewhat artificial, given their very short first day and the exhibit list being turned over to them today at lunch.)
axx said:
I can't believe that they are hung & I love it. Then again, it's not like Hernandez is going to walk. They'll just have to try him again on OL after the double murder trial.
Rovin Romine said:
It's a little too early to say they're hung.
Please. There is no way infer they are hung at this point. It's too early. If they are hung, it probably will start to manifest itself first in things like notes to the court, requests that testimony be reread, legal questions and so forth.axx said:
I can't believe that they are hung & I love it. Then again, it's not like Hernandez is going to walk. They'll just have to try him again on OL after the double murder trial.
dcmissle said:Please. There is no way infer they are hung at this point. It's too early. If they are hung, it probably will start to manifest itself first in things like notes to the court, requests that testimony be reread, legal questions and so forth.
Rovin Romine said:
So do we assign a "natural and normal deliberation period" as the end of today? The end of tomorrow? Do they have a long list or a short list of things they want to confirm? It's tough to guess at, given the volume of evidence in the case.
A smaller case with more narrow issues would have me thinking the natural period for debate is by the end of today. I'd guess at a split/holdout if they didn't reach a decision tonight. But here, they've only put in a couple of hours yesterday, and 6 hours(?) thus far today. They've just gotten the exhibit list a couple hours ago and have asked a clarifying question. So, maybe today. Maybe tomorrow. If it goes beyond tomorrow, 3pm, I'd start suspecting split.
Preacher said:That's a nice benefit of practicing in a jurisdiction without a possibility of a hung jury. We require (at least) a 2/3 vote to convict (and 2/3s on the sentence). Any less than that and it's an acquittal. Makes for shorter deliberations.
There are US states that don't need a unanimous jury to convict (Oregon I think? Louisiana for sure, but they're always weird with civil law and whatnot).MentalDisabldLst said:
What? Where are you, Russia?
axx said:
I can't believe that they are hung & I love it. Then again, it's not like Hernandez is going to walk. They'll just have to try him again on OL after the double murder trial.
One of those pesky systems that seems concerned with what actually happened.EvilEmpire said:UCMJ.
NortheasternPJ said:
Why do you love it? Seems like an odd statement.
Rovin Romine said:One of those pesky systems that seems concerned with what actually happened.
Rovin Romine said:MA's system is interesting - the idea that you just hold the alternates off to the side and plug them in if needed. Deliberations begin again - whatever that means. (I'd assume, for example, if there were 11 G votes, a holdout was excused for whatever reasons, and the alternate juror was going to vote G, there wouldn't be a need to rehash much.)
In other jurisdictions, once an alternate is excused, they're gone. The thought being that you can't have some of the jurors discussing the case outside of the presence of another juror.
I had not factored this into my thinking about the case.
smastroyin said:Two jurors were sidebarred, full jury is in court now apparently.
Update: Media were stalking a couple of the jurors. Judge wanted to make sure they weren't tainted, gave instruction to jury. Judge may bar WHDH from courtroom. Back to deliberations, looks like.
theapportioner said:A holdout being excused because she/he was a holdout seems like a travesty of justice.
Buffalo Head said:
I've been watching Ch. 7 this morning and at about 9:30 the anchors were talking to the reporter on scene about what was happening in the sidebars, then quickly cut back to the studio where they said, "It appears the judge is about to speak, are we getting a live feed?" Then a couple seconds of awkward silence, and the anchor says, "We appear to be havingtechnicalethical/legal difficulties, we'll return to thatin a momentafter our in-house counsel finishes his ranting "WTF" speech."
The rest of the newscast, not a word about the trial.
My mornings are a little worse now that Kayna Whitworth has left to join her husband in LA.Buffalo Head said:This never would have happened if Anne Allred were still there.
I miss you, Anne Allred...
dcmissle said:https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter268/section13b
Look at Section 13B.1(c)(iii).
That would be potential jury tampering. If reporters are following me in the middle of deliberations, I would regard it as harassment.