Coos County Watchdog


  • Home >>>
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Links
    • Whistle-Blower’s Page
  • Blog >>>
    • Info Blogs
  • Issues >>>
    • Johnson Creek Dam
    • Jury Nullification >
      • Jury Nullification on Facebook
    • More Choices in Bandon
    • NO Bandon Marsh Expansion >
      • Bandon Marsh Expansion on Facebook
    • Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance >
      • S.A.S.O on FB
    • State of Jefferson >
      • State of Jefferson on Facebook
    • The Coos County Charter
    • Urban Renewal Information

Double Jeopardy

5/30/2012

Comments

 
The Sentinel 05/30/2012
THE TEA PARTYER
May 29, 2012
 
While the rest of America was settling in for the Memorial Day Weekend the Supreme Court decided
to restrict the terms of one of this country’s founding principles by slightly eroding the protection from being tried twice for the same crime 
 
Double Jeopardy is an established protection that has long standing in this country in The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.   Many people suffered needlessly for crimes they did not commit when our country was under the rule of England.   One of the most diabolical tools used by the King against the enemies of  the crown was to put a person on trial several times for the same crime until that person was found guilty.   People would languish for years in prison and it was a way to silence dissension of the government.  
  
The action taken by the Supreme Court on May 24, 2012 stems from a case originally tried in Arkansas
where the defendant was charged with four different crimes:  capital murder, first-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide.   The jury in the first trial was deadlocked.  There was no vote on the crime of negligent homicide and they were divided over the question of manslaughter, but did come to a unanimous decision that the defendant was not guilty of capital or first degree murder.   The Judge declared a mistrial and the Prosecutors decided to retry the defendant on all charges in the case of Blueford v. Arkansas, No. 10-1320.
 
However, during deliberations of the case, the Defense asked the court to submit new verdict forms to the jurors asking for counts on the already decided verdicts. The Prosecution objected, because the jury was still deliberating and an acquittal had to be, “all or nothing.”  The Defense request was denied by the court and the court made its ruling.  
 
The origins of the argument begin in the fact that the case was declared a mistrial and did not get a final ruling on the actual charge, so therefore the prosecutors in the case filed for a retrial believing the defendant was not protected from Double Jeopardy.  In addition, the jury in the first trial, during the trial, again was able to deliberate over the charges, nor was it prohibited from reconsidering its vote on the more serious of the charges, and could have changed its mind at any time before returning to the courtroom.  That is the splitting of legal hairs.
 
The attorneys for the defendant claim that because the jury made a consciously unanimous decision and decided that the defendant is innocent of the most severe charges, this gave their client freedom from retrial for the same crimes.  It was the belief of the attorneys that the prosecutor could retry their client for the lesser charge of manslaughter. It is formality and the lack of the finality of the ruling where the defense has the problem of claiming Double Jeopardy.
 
It is not improper for a court to declare a mistrial when ““particular circumstances manifest a necessity”.  However, the defense argued that since the foreperson reported that the jury had already voted unanimously against the two more serious crimes, at that point in time during the trial, the court should have taken some action to obtain a partial verdict.  
  
The defense in this case has to acknowledge that the jury was limited to two options: either an all-out acquittal or conviction of one of the other charges.   There was no reason, nor any obligation of the court to give a third
option to the jury for acquitting on some of the charges.  That is the crux of the debate and that is what gives rise to the several  distinct opinions in this trial.  The Supreme Court has never required a trial court to consider any other way of breaking an impasse before declaring a mistrial because of a hung jury,  much less given new choices for the jury to consider.
 
Supreme Court Justice Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer and Alito gave the opinion that the defendant could be tried again, because the original court was justified in declaring a mistrial with no final verdict.  Plus, there was no formal verdict on the disputed charges.  With a 6-3 divide Justice Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan filed the dissenting opinion citing the jury came to an informal decision, which should have been recognized
by the court, thus giving the defendant Double Jeopardy protections.    These laws keep the courts from getting another “bite at the apple” and abusing the system.   In one instance of the dissenting opinion there was a quote from a similar trial Sanabria v. United States claiming, “Form is not to be exalted over substance.”  
  
In the Blueford case, the dissenting Supreme Court Justices made the opposing opinion based on the jury’s decision and that was on the charges of capital or first-degree murder, even though a court of law did not formalize those decisions.
 
It is my opinion that the jury should have been able to deliberate on the criteria of the trial based on the individual case they were adjudicating, but only after the informing of the jury about their right to deliberate the laws, which established the crimes charged against the defendant.   If the juror finds the law to be as offensive as the crime charged against the defendant, or the charge overreaches the crime committed, then the  jury or one juror can nullify the law.   Unfortunately, that would still lead to a mistrial, so the state court  should have reformulated the charges in a manner so that the members of the jury could have made an objective decision. The court could have done that at trial,  or they could have allowed the jury to submit their own standards for the
charges, within the definition of state and federal law, and added it to the verdict forms they were filing. 
   
The Supreme Court should have found in favor of the defendant or the case should have been rejected and sent back to the state of Arkansas.  Either way, this is a case of an uninformed jury being left to the devices of an overbearing justice system, a system that was originally designed, so that ten guilty men would go free before
one innocent man should ever be found guilty.  The Justices made the wrong decision based on a bad premise.   

“Rob Taylor was the original organizer of the TEA Parties in Coos County and is currently an independent activist working to promote the rights of the individual.”

Related Posts:
Initiatives, Referendums & Referrals, Oh  My…..
Our Demands
Public Participation
Fireworks Symbolize Freedom
Urban Renewal Petition
NO BME
The Unsung Hero
me·a cul·pa
The Six Degrees of Separation
Three Campaign Issues for 2012

Comments

    Categories

    All
    A.F.P.
    Agenda 21
    Bandon
    B.I.A.
    B.L.M.
    Coos Bay
    Coos County
    Coos County
    Coquille
    County Charter
    Curry County
    C.W.A.
    Democratic Party
    D.E.Q.
    Eco Devo
    Eco Devo
    Economic Development
    Educational
    Elections
    E.P.A.
    F.D.A.
    F.E.M.A.
    Individual Rights
    I Spy Radio
    Jury Nullification
    Legislation
    Letter To Editor
    Mary Geddry
    N.D.A.A.
    News Wave
    N.O.A.A.
    North Bend
    O&C Land
    O.D.F.W.
    O.D.O.T.
    O.F.F.
    O.H.A.
    O.P.R.D.
    O.R.C. Mining
    O.W.E.B.
    P.E.R.S.
    Petitions
    Port Of Coos Bay
    Public Comments
    Public Events
    Regulation
    Republican Party
    S.A.O.V.A.
    State Of Jefferson
    The Bandon Marsh
    The Economy
    The Rob Taylor Report
    The Supreme Court
    The Tea Party
    Urban Renewal
    U.S.A.C.E.
    U.S.D.A.
    U.S.F.S
    U.S.F.W.S.

    Sign-Up Now to Stay Informed

    * indicates required

    View previous campaigns.

    Send Letters to:
    ​cooscountywatchdog@gmail.com​

    Disclaimer: Letters to the Editor and other opinions published in The Coos County Watchdog blog are not necessarily the views of the Editor, Publisher, or possible anyone else in their right mind.  The Watchdog reserves the right to edit, omit, or copy any and all submissions. 
    Letters to the Editor must be attributed with a name, address, and contact phone number. 

    WARNING:
    Political correctness is not practiced on this
    page & some content is inappropriate

    RSS Feed


    Archives

    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from DieselDemon