Rocket pleads not guilty

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Criminal trial

likely Double Jeopardy ruling



How is that a brilliant move?

I won't say likely. I won't even go with probable.

'Possible', certainly. But the prosecution never even truly began it's case-in-chief, let alone wrapped it up. And as this case was clearly not decided based on the merits, I'm not sure how a court would determine there was any double jeopardy here.

The obvious issue is the fact that a jury was selected and there could be prejudice to the defendant by now subjecting him to a 2nd jury. But with the court having no earthly idea how jury 1 would have ruled (afterall, maybe this saves Rocket's ass), I think they would be reluctant to engage in that much speculation and call it a double-jeopardy matter.

Now this is bad prosecuting. That's probably the singled dumbest thing I've ever even heard of an attorney doing. It's just staggering that a US Attorney could've been that careless.

Somebody should lose their job over it, for sure.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I won't say likely. I won't even go with probable.

'Possible', certainly. But the prosecution never even truly began it's case-in-chief, let alone wrapped it up. And as this case was clearly not decided based on the merits, I'm not sure how a court would determine there was any double jeopardy here.

The obvious issue is the fact that a jury was selected and there could be prejudice to the defendant by now subjecting him to a 2nd jury. But with the court having no earthly idea how jury 1 would have ruled (afterall, maybe this save's Rocket's ass), I think they would be reluctant to engage in that much speculation and call it a double-jeopardy matter.

Now this is bad prosecuting. That's probably the singled dumbest thing I've ever even heard of an attorney doing. It's just staggering that a US Attorney could've been that careless.

Somebody should lose their job over it, for sure.

Jeopardy is attached once the jury is sworn in.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Jeopardy is attached once the jury is sworn in.

My recollection is that a mistrial issued based on a motion by the defendant terminates double jeopardy, though.

I don't recall exactly what the rule is, but unless the prosecution asked for the mistrial (they clearly didn't), I believe the mistrial essentially acts as a non-suit and the case can be re-tried unless the court determines that the defendant would be materially prejudiced by the sequence of events.

We'll find out in a few weeks, but I don't think Rajah is off the hook just yet.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

My recollection is that a mistrial issued based on a motion by the defendant terminates double jeopardy, though.

I don't recall exactly what the rule is, but unless the prosecution asked for the mistrial (they clearly didn't), I believe the mistrial essentially acts as a non-suit and the case can be re-tried unless the court determines that the defendant would be materially prejudiced by the sequence of events.

We'll find out in a few weeks, but I don't think Rajah is off the hook just yet.

You've got this wrong.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You've got this wrong.

Yeah - I don't.

But we'll see soon enough.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah - I don't.

But we'll see soon enough.

Yeah, you do. And your cite isn't on point. The Scott case centered around pretrial issues.

As for being a condescending shithead, you've been doing that on multiple legal threads lately, when you don't seem to know what the hell you're talking about.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Yeah, you do. And your cite isn't on point. The Scott case centered around pretrial issues.

I'll see you in 3 weeks.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

My recollection is that a mistrial issued based on a motion by the defendant terminates double jeopardy, though.

I don't recall exactly what the rule is, but unless the prosecution asked for the mistrial (they clearly didn't), I believe the mistrial essentially acts as a non-suit and the case can be re-tried unless the court determines that the defendant would be materially prejudiced by the sequence of events.

We'll find out in a few weeks, but I don't think Rajah is off the hook just yet.

Found it - US v. Scott; 437 U. S. 82

http://supreme.justia.com/us/437/82/

In a situation such as the instant one, where a defendant chooses to avoid conviction not because of his assertion that the Government has failed to make out a case against him, but because of a legal claim that the Government's case against him must fail even though it might satisfy the trier of fact that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant, by deliberately choosing to seek termination of the trial, suffers no injury cognizable under the Double Jeopardy Clause if the Government is permitted to appeal from such a trial court ruling favoring the defendant. The Double Jeopardy Clause, which guards against Government oppression, does not relieve a defendant of the consequences of his voluntary choice.

The facts can be distinguished, but the rule of law therein really can't.

In the event the defendant seeks to have the proceedings terminated without a determination as to his ultimate guilt or innocence, he can be re-tried.

[4th and Long]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Jeopardy is attached once the jury is sworn in.

As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Josef Perez. Cases dismissed because of insufficient evidence may constitute a final judgment for these purposes though many state and federal laws allow for substantially limited prosecutorial appeals from these orders. Also, a retrial after a conviction has been set aside following the grant of a motion for new trial, has been reversed on appeal, or has been vacated in a collateral proceeding (such as habeas corpus), does not violate double jeopardy because the judgment in the first trial has been invalidated. In all of these cases, however, the previous trials do not entirely vanish. Testimony from them may be used in later retrials such as to impeach contradictory testimony given at any subsequent proceeding.