[SeaHawkFan]

People should read the dissenting opinion. It is very well-reasoned and explains why the technical lack of a “verdict” is a bogus argument.

[P-Marlowe]

verdict [ˈvɜːdɪkt]

n

1. (Law) the findings of a jury on the issues of fact submitted to it for examination and trial; judgment

2. any decision, judgment, or conclusion

[from Medieval Latin vērdictum, from Latin vērē dictum truly spoken, from vērus true + dīcere to say]

de·ci·sion (d-szhn)

n.

1. The passing of judgment on an issue under consideration.

2. The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind.

3. A conclusion or judgment reached or pronounced; a verdict.

5th Amendment: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . ."[

[MacMattico]

What if it were reversed, and they couldn’t come to an agreement on some lesser charge but in DISCUSSIONS with the judge said they agreed you were guilty of murder? Even though it was never an official verdict, and more deliberation may have found jurors finding reasonable doubt, because the jury was dismissed, should you still fry?

[P-Marlowe]

People should read the dissenting opinion. It is very well-reasoned and explains why the technical lack of a “verdict” is a bogus argument.

I read both the Roberts opinion and the Sotomayor opinion. Roberts seemed to just blow off the whole notion that there is a double jeopardy clause in the Constitution. To Roberts procedure was more important than substance and he never addressed the original intent of the clause and just seemed to rely on pure technicalities and even blew off the FACT that the jury had already reached a decision that the defendant was not guilty of murder.

Sotomayor on the other hand wrote a very well reasoned appeal to the original intent of the Constitution and the meaning of the words and the problem that the founders wanted to ameliorate through the introduction of the double jeopardy clause. The fact that only Kagan and Ginsberg joined in the dissent is really troubling to me. My opinion of Roberts dropped considerably with his opinion here. I thought he tended towards originalism. It appears however that he tends toward pragmatism.