Law-type question

[Optimus B]

why is it that a person can be found guilty, then appeal, be found guilty again, appeal again etc until finally the person is found innocent by some jury/judge/whatever? doesn't the fact that the person was convicted repeatedly have any bearing? it just seems interesting to me that a person can be found guilty by (for instance) 20 different judges/jurys but so long as 1 acquits him/her then they are found innocent.

 

[2Thick]

Once a person has been found guilty or not guilty for a particular crime or set of crimes, they cannot be charged or tried again for the same crime.

 

[Optimus B]

thank you for the insight. it just amazes me that some cases can be appealed so many times when "new evidence" is found.

 

[2Thick]

thank you for the insight. it just amazes me that some cases can be appealed so many times when "new evidence" is found.

You can appeal once you are found guilty, then during the appeals process the new evidence is looked at to see if it has bearing on the case. If not then the appeal is denied and vice versa. The person is not found guilty again. Appeals are necessary in order to protect the right of our citizens.

 

[The Shadow]

look at that case in Fla.

Tried a guy for murdering his neighbor with a baseball bat.......

Well....during THAT trial...the Da decised to try the dead man's two sons for the murder.

Verdict was reached in the first case and then was ruled to remained sealed until AFTER the boys's trial..


now that is fucked up

 

[Citruscide]

Once a person has been found guilty or not guilty for a particular crime or set of crimes, they cannot be charged or tried again for the same crime.

Not totally true 2thick. You need to qualify it. Once a person is charged with a crime, they may not be charged within the SAME jurisdiction for the SAME crime.

Double Jeopardy can not bar being charged with the same crime in state and federal court. Nor, murder of one individual in 2 different states... (say Girl X lived in CA but was murdered in NV)... he could be charged in both states.

C-ditty

 

[Citruscide]

Basic Constitutional rights tend to err in favor of the Defendant. Specifically, when the founding fathers inked the constitution, they did so with the understanding that the government was not to be trusted. This distrust of government naturally leads to the conclusion that it is better to allow a guilty person free than to punish the innocent. Thus, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof in criminal cases.

As to the issue of appeals, notions of "due process" require that defendants be given a full and fair opportunity to offer a defense. I think most people agree that erring on the side of allowing someone to fully present a defense is better than erring on the side of a presumption of guilt. However, the due process requirements which allow the Court to reopen the case when new evidence is discovered is not unchecked. To reopen the matter for hearing, the defendant must show not only that the new evidence was not reasonably discoverable during the course of discovery for the initial hearing, but they must also show that the newly discovered evidence has a substantial likelihood to alter the outcome of the case.

Not really sure there's a better system...

-Mr. Spatts

You could have said that in 1-2 sentences Spatts.

C-ditty

 

[The Shadow]

In that case the neighbor was a homosexual lover of one of the boys. Granted, the prosecutor made a poor choice in that case. One murderer, three separate murder trials proceeding simultaneously (although the boys' trial was consolidated) . . . . . WTF?!

However, the outcome is that the neighbor was acquitted. He is, however, facing charges for "accessory to murder" My only response to that is - sometimes The Man screws up . . .

-Mr. Spatts

..the neighbor had a count of child molestation in his past...now the oldest of the two sons was 13 I think....kids were found guilty...a constitutional lawyer could make his mark with that case.....SEALING the original verdict - that's some shit

 

[Citruscide]

This is Mr. Spatts. Law school took the brevity from my prose. Relate much?

All law school did was give me the ability to analyze the law, research the law, and to come to a conclusion as to whether or not I could win a case for my client based on what I learned.

I'm an IP attorney... most of my writing is based on ideas many attorneys rarely encounter... but I do have a fasination with constitutional law and the criminal justice system. So I tend to keep abreast on it.

Good too see a fellow attorney on the board... but still, you could have said it in a couple sentences.

C-ditty

 

[Citruscide]

I've seen one of those patent files (from a distance thankfully) Ain't much brevity there. lol

I think most attorneys can relate to constitutional and criminal law/procedure . . . kind of where the rubber meets the road in the practical sense.

-Mr. Spatts

Actually, for what has to go into them, they are pretty brief... just all the technical writings and drawings... and the specifics... using the word "and" instead of "but" could cost you a 20million dollar case and a malpractice suit... lots of work goes into it.

C-ditty

 

[Citruscide]

Have to say I fully respect the IP guys. I think you guys operate better with the scalpel than we litigators do with our bludgeon. Guess that's reflected in the relative pay scales too, generally, and rightfully so.

-Mr. Spatts

Heh heh... I just stuck my nose into a 20 million dollar law suit today.

C-ditty

 

[HaroldSparrow]

Heh heh... I just stuck my nose into a 20 million dollar law suit today.

C-ditty

hey c-ditty, why dont you take dat money and fix your bro's sized
c-titties