The one with the most money.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 09/15/2009 7:52:10 PM PDT by plinyelder
"If" by chance, the lady who admitted on todays ACORN video to setting up and then killing her husband, If she really did kill and then get off on an abuse defense .. Can they retry the case?
What about the double jeopardy law?
Just curious.
Thanks
The remark that Hannah made about her prior pimp abusing her is a hint that Hannah knew that Tresa might spill on her own abusive husband that she killed. This is a remarkable bit of intelligence that the interviewers must have been informed about, perhaps by an internal source. A wild idea I have is that the FBI was the source of this intelligence, and they passed it on to Breitbart to publicize the rotten ACORN, since it might be easier to fight this fight on television using Fox rather than being hamstrung by the higher levels of the FBI, the Attorney General and Obama. The next three videos will prolly nail Obumma directly.
On an earlier link bloggers have located court records showing that incidents occurred in 2007 and 2008 resulting in first her husband being restrained, then her being restrained. With this much paper going, it is more likely that she was blowing smoke. She probably “wished” she had shot him.
No statute of limitations on murder. If she hasn’t been tried before, she would be fair game today.
If in fact there was a trial, jeopardy would be attached. However, this woman (at least to me) came across as a pathological liar.
My guess is that if she killed her husband, she was never prosecuted because the police and the DA felt that she had acted in self defense. Well, she just admitted that she did not act in self defense. But I suspect she is just a serial liar and never killed anyone.
This is unlikely. Ms. Giles has been using that same rationale at every ACORN office. It's part of their story: she is hiding from an abusive pimp.
No they fell into that. Heck the woman started to say, “We are suppose to be non-partisan” and then O’Keefe cuts her off. He blew a chance to get on tape an Acornidiot admitting their partisan bias. But I suspect under cover filming like that is very high pressure and they have done a great job. I am just sorry he let this one little opportunity slip by.
I don’t think this woman was charged with murder in the first place, so double jeopardy would be moot.
I have always been curious to know what the ultimate goal of the American legal system is — justice or truth? Which of the two virtues is more important in a society?
justice or truth?
********************
expediency wins every time.
There is no way that Breitbart is going to risk this enterprise without intelligence of what his actors are going to face. He had to have knowledge from an inside source of what offices to target and what the targets would say or would react to the story. There were insiders who turned on the founders and revealed the million dollar fraud. My guess is those two insiders provided the intelligence for the idea to run the prostitution act for TV.
“I have always been curious to know what the ultimate goal of the American legal system is — justice or truth? Which of the two virtues is more important in a society?”
Neither one. The real goals are damage control and maintaining public order. Truth is often garbled, as the most sincere witness is imperfect in perception, memory and expression. Justice is never possible as no crime victim is truly made whole by any mortal court. People strive to do their best, but damage control and a relative degree of order is about the best that can be achieved.
If she has been tried and acquitted it is over. She is not guilty as a matter of law. She can write a “How I Did It and How You Can Too” book with impunity. Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury and alternates are selected and sworn. In a judge trial jeopardy attaches when the first witness is called and testifies. If the first trial resulted in a mistrial there might still be a case.
Believe it or not, a confession by itself is not likely to result in a conviction in any case. Many criminals or wannabe criminals like to boast or inflate their deeds, and there are a lot of kooks who dramatize their sad lives with claims to murders or other lurid events which are completely false.
I am not sure you are correct. I did not chime in on the question orginally because it asked for attorneys and I am not one. But if she got off with an abuse defense, perhaps she could be charged with perjury? A judge might even be inclined to give her the maximum and maybe consecutive sentences if she testified more than once and perjured herself.
The one with the most money.
“I am not sure you are correct. I did not chime in on the question orginally because it asked for attorneys and I am not one. But if she got off with an abuse defense, perhaps she could be charged with perjury? A judge might even be inclined to give her the maximum and maybe consecutive sentences if she testified more than once and perjured herself.”
There might be a case for perjury if the testimony is within the statute of limitations. Trials for perjury are very rare however. That is a shame, as perjury is very common.
Incidentally JLS, my initial post in ‘reply’ to you was accidental. I am new to this board and just fumbling around. I was attempting to reply to Pliny the elder.
Good point about how the “supposed to be non partisan” line was an intriguing opportunity lost. These two gained an amazing amount of ground against ACORN though. But that would have been rich to follow the “non partisan” opening.
It is highly unlikely she was tried already. If so she can not be tried again. She could be tried for depriving him of his civil rights. However, if she was never tried this tape would be a confession. I personally think she was lying.
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.