Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why isn't this all over the news? The media likes to report injustices when it is reversed which should not be the case it all should be reported regardless of color involved! Violent crimes are Violent crimes Period. This poor couple.
Where is the Coverage BIG MEDIA COVERAGE Where is it?
2007 Worst Story We All Missed in America - Not Covered by MEDIA
~~
Did some checking on this story and the Defendants were given a NEW TRIAL on DECEMBER 1, 2011............due to drug abuse by the presiding judge HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE?
4 new trials granted in Christian-Newsom murders (KNOXVILLE WATE)
n a hearing Thursday, Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood granted motions for new trials for the four people originally convicted in the Christian-Newsom murders. 4 new trials granted in Christian-Newsom murders
honestly those pieces of **** who got convicted should be rotting in a shallow grave right now. another shining stain on our criminal injustice system.
Did some checking on this story and the Defendants were given a NEW TRIAL on DECEMBER 1, 2011............due to drug abuse by the presiding judge HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE?
I don't know why there was less coverage, but what these defendants did is of course horrible and should be punished to the fullest extent possible. I can only speculate as to why there wasn't more media buzz - perhaps because these goons were at least quickly arrested and placed under scrutiny and questioning for their alleged actions - unlike Zimmerman, who may never even see the inside of a court room at this rate. If all four had been let go, then I bet you'd see a lot more media buzz.
But beyond the media, it seems to me that the process is working correctly here in reaction to a judge who is not fit to adjudicate trial. In America, everyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty and has a right to a fair and speedy trial. As part of that right, the officials have to have the competence, impartiality, and state of mind to adjudicate the process. If the judge is strung out on crack, don't you think that likely affects the process just a bit? Would you want to be a defendant and have your life decided by some guy with impaired judgment?
Of course not. So you throw that judge out (hopefully into prison), and you have to proceed with a new one. The evidence is the same, and if it paints the picture of guilty then it should stick. It's unfortunate that they had to be tried again, but everyone has the right to go all the way through the properly-administered legal process before they are jailed or whatever else.
Their original sentences were upheld because of the double jeopardy law.
What is a double jeopardy "law"?
By the way, double jeopardy doesn't prevent an appellate court from ordering a retrial of a person found guilty in a lower court. Double jeopardy only applies to individuals who were found not guilty from being retried on the same or similar charges by the same jurisdiction.[/quote]
By the way, double jeopardy doesn't prevent an appellate court from ordering a retrial of a person found guilty in a lower court. Double jeopardy only applies to individuals who were found not guilty from being retried on the same or similar charges by the same jurisdiction.
[/quote]
It's funny how people protest things while blatantly showing us they don't know what they're talking about.
Yes, they were tried and convicted...but why was there NO coverage about it???? It went completely under the radar.
The media coverage isn't fair. Anyone with common sense knows this. The news is a business and they look for the story that's going to get them the most attention.
Either way...if the charges are the SAME they cannot be tried twice, BY LAW.
This is why I never bother (most of the time) sending you a complete thought because you are utterly boring with these technicalities. if you are going to argue semantics, make a point....which you are about to NOT do below...
Quote:
By the way, double jeopardy doesn't prevent an appellate court from ordering a retrial of a person found guilty in a lower court. Double jeopardy only applies to individuals who were found not guilty from being retried on the same or similar charges by the same jurisdiction.
What is your point? Because their sentences were upheld due to double jeopardy....Not the charges they WEREN'T found guilty of.
So ovcatto is wrong... because in this instance...the defendants are being tried again...and their initial sentences can not be greater than the original sentences due to double jeopardy...
Which means they were being tried again for...........sentences they were already convicted of.....a.k.a found guilty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE?
