Posted on 05/29/2014 8:05:11 AM PDT by Bratch
Three cheers for the Supremes (finally). They were 100% correct on the Fifth Amendment.
I hope they read the rest of the Bill of Rights before writing their next opinion.
This wasn’t a bench trial.
A jury was sworn in and the judge granted a directed verdict of not guilty.
In no state can this be appealed under the 5th Amendment.
How about you reading the post to which I was responding. Is that really too much to ask.
Exactly. The prosecutor was present and free to in introduce whatever evidence he had. So technically he did put on his case to the degree he wished to, he just sucked. You can’t make the defendant liable for the prosecutor’s bad decisions.
No that’s not too much to ask.
Sorry I didn’t mean to offend.
I’m not a snarky FReeper:-)
No problem.
Yeah, sometimes, the Constitution is just that...
from my reading of the Breitbart story, the prosecution couldn’t find the two victim/witnesses, and obtained several delays. The judge finally told them they had to bring the case, and gave them authorization for the police to find the witnesses. They never found them and they never appeared. Without them the prosecutors believed they could not proceed.
Yeah - it’s called, “optimally incompetent prosecution.”
Most of our prosecutors are affirmative action hires. They’re rarely there by merit.
I read that. But why did the prosecutors empanel a jury? They could have just dismissed the case without prejudice and then brought charges again when they found the witnesses. Any prosecutor knows this.
There are facts missing from the news article.
The prosecutors took a big gamble. And lost. But, interesting that until SCOTUS everyone seemed to think it was OK to empanel the jury, not prosecute, get a verdict, and then retry Martinez.
I suppose Martinez will manage to get himself arrested again for some similar crime. How likely is it that he’ll see the error of his ways, and turn from crime? In the meanwhile, thanks to the bad decision of the prosecutors, he’s on the streets.
This was not a appeal which have time limits. This was a second filing.
Sorry but the state could have dropped the case, instead they took it to trial and refused to do their job. They had a fair bite at the apple. They did not take it.
How many bites at the apple does our judicial system get when a charge is made against you?
Until they get a result of guilty?
That's what Illinois wanted. (I live in this f'ed up state.)
Municipal court said you weren't guilty, so the circuit court gets it, then the appellate court gets it, then the state supreme court gets it, then the US Supreme court gets it?
Is that really what you want, having to defend yourself at five (or more) judicial levels?
From Gold Star Dad Kirk Morris
By virtue of having Honorably served our country we are calling all Veterans, Active Duty, Medically Retired, or Reservist fisherman.... from any and all years of service... (am I all inclusive enough?)
The reason I am writing you all is this. The 10th Annual Heroes Of Freedom Fishing Derby https://www.facebook.com/PFCGeoffreyMorrisMemorialFishingTournamentis on Sunday the 22nd of June 2014. The point for the whole day is to give veterans, active duty, reservists, and our wounded an opportunity for a day on the Big Lake for fun, relaxation and camaraderie.
The event is open to the first 100 Veterans that complete the attached Registration form.
Please note that precedence will be given to:
1) WIA / Purple Heart Veterans
2) VA Patients
3) Active/Reservists
4) retired military.
We can accommodate wheelchairs or other infirmaries ... just need to let us know what assistance you might need.
Registration is easier this year... We have partnered with Oscar Mike a 100% VETERAN OWNED apparel company whose Mission is to keep you “On the Move” in every aspect of life. The term “Oscar Mike” comes from military radio jargon used on the front lines. It translates to “On the Move”.... being Oscar Mike means being active, staying positive and living life to its absolute fullest.
Online Registration form can be found by clicking here http://www.oscarmike.org/event/2014-morris-memorial-fishing-derby which will re-direct you to the Oscar Mike website. Complete the form and you will be sent additional information and schedule of events.
The 10th Annual PFC Geoffrey Morris Memorial Fishing Tournament is just three
weeks away. The competitive fishing is 20th and 21st of June, an enormously fun time. All events are held at North Point Marina which is located in Winthrop Harbor, IL (WI / IL State Lines where land meets Lake Michigan). You are more than welcome to visit and partake in these
festivities as well.
For you that don't know what that is? Many of the Captains that fished the Pro and Am Divisions of the Morris Memorial Fishing Tournament the previous days (and they are some of the best Salmon Fishing Captains on Lake Michigan) stay over to take you past and present Members of our Military out for a day of Salmon Fishing.. AT NO COST TO YOU. We serve farm fresh breakfast prepared on site by Jones Dairy Farm at 0700 - 0900, leave Winthrop Harbor at 0900 and return mid afternoon to a wonderful banquet sponsored by the USO, Wounded Heroes Foundation, MillerCoors and Skipper Buds.
No need to bring rods, reels or any tackle, boats, food will all be supplied for you. What I do need is a confirmation from you as to your desire to attend and fish with us.
As a side note.... newspapers and press are banned from this event and have been banned since the inaugural year's event,10 years ago.
Feel free to pass this email around to your wounded veterans that you think might be interested in fishing with us... or contact me via email, cell phone, fax or land line..... all are listed below... Look forward to fishing with you all.
Kirk S. Morris - Executive Director
PFC Geoffrey Morris Memorial Foundation a/k/a Heroes Of Freedom Memorial®
3435 Harper Avenue, Gurnee, IL 60031 P: 847.263.4188 C: 847.373.1668 F:847.557.2166
http://www.GSMTournament.com www.HeroesOfFreedomMemorial.org
Only until a person was given a trial which might plausibly have had some purpose other than to grant double-jeopardy protection. I would suggest that if a person is brought to trial, then before the person could be tried again the state would have to show clear and compelling evidence that the state (or agents there conducted the first trial in bad faith for the purpose of rendering the defendant immune from prosecution.
Just as it is mathematically impossible for any non-trivial system of logic to be fully contained and yet free of contradictions, so too in law. Any fixed system of law must operate on the assumption that there are certain specific individuals who act in good faith. No fixed system can possibly be immune to the possibility of individuals conspiring in bad faith. The only way to provide immunity against certain combinations of individuals acting in bad faith will be to apply the long-standing fundamental principles that persons acting in bad faith should not be allowed to profit thereby, while those acting in good faith should not be harmed thereby. Judges who use such principles to overrule explicitly-written law should be very explicit about what they are doing and why they are doing it, so that the public may know what is happening and whether they should praise the judge or clamor for impeachment.
To use a rough analogy, suppose a crooked home plate umpire decides to call strike" on every pitch by the home team, even if it rolls across the plate, and "ball" on every pitch thrown by the visiting team, no matter how perfect; once the home team has built up a 20-0 lead, the umpire has a heart attack and is replaced. If the new umpire had seen what happened, he might decide that equity could best be achieved by either:
Note that the kind of extralegal judicial action I describe should not be taken lightly, nor should it be frequently invoked. On the other hand, I would posit that recognition of its necessity and legitimacy would go a long way toward reducing the frequency with which it would be necessary. Further, it would help even the balance between dishonest judges who feel free to make up the law as they go along, without need for justification, and honest judges who cannot find in the law any available remedies for people harmed by the activist judges. Among other things, the less soundly argued an activist decision was, the less justification an honest judge would need to prescribe a remedy undoing its effect.
Thanks for the ping and bump!
The fact is in this case the state wanted a second attempt (avoiding double-jeopardy) using a specious argument claiming the first trial 'was a sham' ..... due to the conditions the state itself caused.
If the state of Illinois is not going to take a judicial proceeding seriously and they lose a case because of it, is that the defendent's fault or the state's fault?
Maybe next time the state of Illinois (God help me for living here...) will do their jobs correctly.
That's all I'm saying.
Anything else is double-jeopardy and I think the USSC got this one right.
Note that the kind of extralegal judicial action I describe should not be taken lightly, nor should it be frequently invoked. On the other hand, I would posit that recognition of its necessity and legitimacy would go a long way toward reducing the frequency with which it would be necessary.
You and I should both know that should this type of legal action be successful ONCE, that's precedent enough for it to be used over, and over, and over again.
I do not trust the corrupt Government and Judicial system that you and I live under, as far as I can throw it. Give the bastards an inch, they'll take a mile. Then 10, Then 20, then 100, then ....
Further, it would help even the balance between dishonest judges who feel free to make up the law as they go along, without need for justification,
Exactly how would that be? I won't argue that we have judges that make the law up as they go along, however your solution proposes giving them yet another way to manipulate the system. That's not a fix, that's simply giving them another tool to be even more corrupt in misapplying. I'm not going there. and honest judges who cannot find in the law any available remedies for people harmed by the activist judges. Among other things, the less soundly argued an activist decision was, the less justification an honest judge would need to prescribe a remedy undoing its effect.
So we fix the system by giving a highly flawed "fix" with which corrupt judges can be more corrupt, and honest judges still don't have a way of remedying the system?
To say nothing about those who'd be victimized by giving the judicial system a second, third, fourth, tenth bite at the apple. Yes, let's give our corrupt to the core Government and the Judicial system that refuses to stop it, more power over the rest of our lives.
NOT.
In general, the actions of an employee are considered to be actions of the employer, but there are exceptions. If Joe bribes an employee of a company to do something that supposedly "harms" Joe, for the purpose of facilitating a lawsuit against the company, the fact that Joe bribed the employee to harm him would mean Joe, rather than the company, bore the responsibility for the employee's actions.
With regard to the issue of double jeopardy, suppose that Mr. Big, who had a prosecutor and a judge in his pocket (whether through bribery or blackmail), knew that he was under investigation for a crime, and that it was only a matter of time before the prosecutor would find enough evidence to convict. To alleviate this danger, Mr. Big, the judge, and prosecutor conspired one afternoon to have the friendly prosecutor bring the case to trial immediately, whereupon the prosecutor failed to present any sort of meaningful case and the judge ordered a directed verdict of acquittal.
If things transpired as described, would you say that the double-jeopardy rule should protect Mr. Big, or would you say that the fact that the prosecutor was deliberately acting in the interests of Mr. Big rather than the state would deny Mr. Big the normal remedy against the state [i.e. double-jeopardy protection] for having brought him to trial?
I would posit that double-jeopardy rules should not be applicable if it could be shown that things transpired as stated. In order to overcome double jeopardy protections, the state should have to demonstrate to both a grand jury and a petit jury that the prosecutor in the original trial was seeking an acquittal for the purpose of preventing Mr. Big from having to face legitimate charges before Mr. Big could be re-indicted; Mr. Big should have the right to produce counter-evidence at the petit jury stage [but if the grand jury wasn't convinced, Mr. Big wouldn't even have to spend any legal expenses responding to the claims]. Only if the petit jury found that the the purpose and effect of the prosecutor's bringing the case to trial were to benefit the defendant would Mr. Big be subject to reindictment.
Honest incompetence on the part of a prosecutor, no matter how severe, should not be grounds for declaring that a defendant's first trial was a "sham". On the other hand, if a prosecutor's actions cannot plausibly be attributed to anything other than a deliberate effort to sabotage the state's legitimate case, a defendant should not be entitled to benefit from such action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.