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.
Somewhere w/in this thread the answer to my question may be; however, I have not read every single comment[s], and if not, can someone answer me:
If it is found, after a full and appropriate investigation re: the jury/jury members, that there was something wrong, whether it was a juror not following the necessary rules or whatever, can there be a new trial [although I would certainly think the defense would file however motions possible to prevent it] or would it be regardless of what was determined, that double jeopardy would apply and then the process would be completely moot.
There are cases, I believe, that after a verdict of not-guilty comes in, and additional evidence is produced that would completely prove that person's guilt, nothing can be introduced, too bad, verdict done, over.
Would this be the same type of situation?
I find myself frustrated at this point. I realize that almost everyone believes that Casey Anthony is guilty and managed to beat the rap. What a post like this exemplifies though is an unwillingness to apply basic constitutional principles. I don't know whether civics course don't teach these principles, whether people forget them, or whether there is just strong willingness in the community to ignore laws they don't like.
As a lawyer who has practiced law for 27 years let me make one clear unequivocal statement:
The double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution prevents Casey Anthony for ever being tried for the murder of her child again, NO MATTER WHAT..
Another poster gave a summation of cases in which he/she claims a person can be tried again. None of these cases apply to the situation where a "not guilty" verdict is returned for a criminal defendant. All the cases cited involved different situations. They primarily involved cases where a person was convicted and appealed the conviction. Convictions can be overturned during appeal for many different reasons. This is a different situation than the state appealing a "not guilty" verdict. It can't be done once the jury reaches a verdict of not guilty. Some of the decisions cited were in civil as opposed to criminal cases. Civil cases can be appealed and there is no double jeopardy clause precluding a retrial for either side in these matters.
Let me give an example of how potent the "double jeopardy clause" is. There was a case in Florida where some men were on trial for drug trafficking. The drug traffickers bribed certain members of the jury to avoid conviction. The jury returned a not guilty verdict. Later, some of the jury members were successfully prosecuted for taking bribes. Nevertheless, the not guilty verdict they returned stands.
I realize the idea of a mother killing a child so heartlessly is an enormously upsetting event. Even so, it does not permit us to ignore the Constitution and laws we don't like.
I find myself frustrated at this point. I realize that almost everyone believes that Casey Anthony is guilty and managed to beat the rap. What a post like this exemplifies though is an unwillingness to apply basic constitutional principles. I don't know whether civics course don't teach these principles, whether people forget them, or whether there is just strong willingness in the community to ignore laws they don't like.
As a lawyer who has practiced law for 27 years let me make one clear unequivocal statement:
The double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution prevents Casey Anthony for ever being tried for the murder of her child again, NO MATTER WHAT..
Another poster gave a summation of cases in which he/she claims a person can be tried again. None of these cases apply to the situation where a "not guilty" verdict is returned for a criminal defendant. All the cases cited involved different situations. They primarily involved cases where a person was convicted and appealed the conviction. Convictions can be overturned during appeal for many different reasons. This is a different situation than the state appealing a "not guilty" verdict. It can't be done once the jury reaches a verdict of not guilty. Some of the decisions cited were in civil as opposed to criminal cases. Civil cases can be appealed and there is no double jeopardy clause precluding a retrial for either side in these matters.
Let me give an example of how potent the "double jeopardy clause" is. There was a case in Florida where some men were on trial for drug trafficking. The drug traffickers bribed certain members of the jury to avoid conviction. The jury returned a not guilty verdict. Later, some of the jury members were successfully prosecuted for taking bribes. Nevertheless, the not guilty verdict they returned stands.
I realize the idea of a mother killing a child so heartlessly is an enormously upsetting event. Even so, it does not permit us to ignore the Constitution and laws we don't like.
I find myself frustrated at this point. I realize that almost everyone believes that Casey Anthony is guilty and managed to beat the rap. What a post like this exemplifies though is an unwillingness to apply basic constitutional principles. I don't know whether civics course don't teach these principles, whether people forget them, or whether there is just strong willingness in the community to ignore laws they don't like.
As a lawyer who has practiced law for 27 years let me make one clear unequivocal statement:
The double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution prevents Casey Anthony for ever being tried for the murder of her child again, NO MATTER WHAT..
Another poster gave a summation of cases in which he/she claims a person can be tried again. None of these cases apply to the situation where a "not guilty" verdict is returned for a criminal defendant. All the cases cited involved different situations. They primarily involved cases where a person was convicted and appealed the conviction. Convictions can be overturned during appeal for many different reasons. This is a different situation than the state appealing a "not guilty" verdict. It can't be done once the jury reaches a verdict of not guilty. Some of the decisions cited were in civil as opposed to criminal cases. Civil cases can be appealed and there is no double jeopardy clause precluding a retrial for either side in these matters.
Let me give an example of how potent the "double jeopardy clause" is. There was a case in Florida where some men were on trial for drug trafficking. The drug traffickers bribed certain members of the jury to avoid conviction. The jury returned a not guilty verdict. Later, some of the jury members were successfully prosecuted for taking bribes. Nevertheless, the not guilty verdict they returned stands.
I realize the idea of a mother killing a child so heartlessly is an enormously upsetting event. Even so, it does not permit us to ignore the Constitution and laws we don't like.
I can understand your frustration over the ignorance that people seem to have about our justice system. Actualy, I started a thread about it not too long ago. " the rising ignorance of our justice system".
I posted the link but admittedly didnt read it. It was posted by someone else and I just copied it.
If you are familiar with my posts, you'll see that I'm quite aware of the diouble jeopardy laws and that I support them. While it is a shame that a women can get away with murder, in no way do I think that she should ever be able to be tried again. That would undermine the protections afforded to us by the Constitution and that is a slippery slope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12
I don't have to know HOW a child died, to know that anyone who put her in that trash bag is culpable of a crime.
I don't have to care about who slept with who, or whatever...just that the Mother was the last person seen with the child.
Thus, logic here...the Mother put the child in the trash bag....logic again...Mother is responsible for the crime.
Yes, except here is the rub: They weren't given the change to convict of manslaughter. The DA, because of all of the blood lust by YOU, the general public, went for straight murder.
Had the DA tried her for manslaughter, they MAY have gotten a conviction, based upon the EVIDENCE. The simple fact is, the DA could not PROVE how the kid died; which sunk their case. How do you prove premeditated murder, without knowing how the person died? YOU CAN'T.
Do you mean "chance to convict of manslaughter?"....The District Attorney of Florida proffers the charge, dont blame the "general public bloodlust"
If people are enraged that the jury was a group of sheep, and a murderer got off, that is the opinion they are entitled to in America. God bless it.
Well, the mother said the child drowned and the grandfather was there. Had this happened, why didn't the mother come forward and tell the story during the months she was in jail? Why didn't ANYONE tell the story? The grandfather said he wasn't there and didn't know anything about it.
Why would the mother keep a drowning a secret or LIE about how her child died ....unless she had something to hide.
To me, that is circumstantial enough.
Then lets throw in the wild goose chases, partying, garbage bag in swamp, internet searches, etc. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.
If someone is unable to do this or still doesn't get it....then you are welcome to your opinion. Hiding behind the constitution though, is a real stretch. The constitution does not call us to stupidity. If I had been on the jury, they would either still be there deliberating or they could call a mistrial and start again. I would NOT have caved in because to me....THAT would be the real constitutional tragedy.
The "Mother" never said a word. That entire "story" came from Baez...with absolutely not one shred of evidence...it was just a fairy tale, woven for the jury as smoke and mirrors, an alternative suggestion, that no one really knew how the child died...to confuse simple folks, who are concrete thinkers. The whole premise of this case, was based on using logic, and reasonable thinking. Something that concrete thinkers can't grasp.
The whole thing was too much of an overload for their brains, so they took the easiest way out, from a concrete point of view...no evidence of how child died...no conviction.
Well, the mother said the child drowned and the grandfather was there. Had this happened, why didn't the mother come forward and tell the story during the months she was in jail? Why didn't ANYONE tell the story? The grandfather said he wasn't there and didn't know anything about it.
Why would the mother keep a drowning a secret or LIE about how her child died ....unless she had something to hide.
To me, that is circumstantial enough.
Then lets throw in the wild goose chases, partying, garbage bag in swamp, internet searches, etc. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.
If someone is unable to do this or still doesn't get it....then you are welcome to your opinion. Hiding behind the constitution though, is a real stretch. The constitution does not call us to stupidity. If I had been on the jury, they would either still be there deliberating or they could call a mistrial and start again. I would NOT have caved in because to me....THAT would be the real constitutional tragedy.
I agree with you, GloryB. I thought there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to implicate Casey in, at the very least, a negligent death. Scott Peterson was convicted on less circumstantial evidence and he's on death row today. The jurors seemed to be of a mind that they needed rock solid, hard evidence when the total picture was pretty clear to me: Casey Anthony knows how her daughter died and had something to do with it in some way.
I agree with you, GloryB. I thought there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to implicate Casey in, at the very least, a negligent death. Scott Peterson was convicted on less circumstantial evidence and he's on death row today. The jurors seemed to be of a mind that they needed rock solid, hard evidence when the total picture was pretty clear to me: Casey Anthony knows how her daughter died and had something to do with it in some way.
And THAT is enough to convict her of manslaughter.
The "Mother" never said a word. That entire "story" came from Baez...with absolutely not one shred of evidence...it was just a fairy tale, woven for the jury as smoke and mirrors, an alternative suggestion, that no one really knew how the child died...to confuse simple folks, who are concrete thinkers. The whole premise of this case, was based on using logic, and reasonable thinking. Something that concrete thinkers can't grasp.
The whole thing was too much of an overload for their brains, so they took the easiest way out, from a concrete point of view...no evidence of how child died...no conviction.
As I have said before......that story did not come from Baez.
If Baez was going to make up a story about drowning.....he would not have been stupid enough to throw George into the mix.....why put a witness at the scene who can deny the story?
If Baez had made up the drowning story, he would have painted a picture of a scared, naive, traumatized young mother who was all alone when her child drowned and just panicked.....that story would have been believable, IMHO.
Does anyone here really believe that a man in his fifties, an ex police officer to boot.....would panic and try to cover up a drowning and toss a corpse willy nilly right off of a well traveled road?
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.
