The military can order him to duty anywhere, and if he refuses, then he will be court marshalled again.
If he takes an Iraq or Afghanistan duty assignment, I want to buy a life insurance policy on him.
A mistrial can constitute a trial if evidence was lead to convict him. We have a double jeopardy rule, and if it is pleaded on a second identical charge, with identical evidence, then it is successful. They should have changed the offences he had been charged with, or found "new" evidence.Then Watada would not have been able to plead double jeopardy as a defence to the second trial.
A man can only be tried once for any given offence under federal law. State law is different in many jurisdictions where the double jeopardy rule is very narrowly interpreted.
Generally once a person is placed in jeopardy by evidence led against him that would lead to concviction, that evidence cannot be used for a trial in a second identical offence trial. Some staes allow a second trial with very small changes to the indictment or to the offence with which the accused is charged. In this case , the feds decided the charges and evidence were identical to the first trial, so the double jeopardy defence was successful.
Sounds like a Dem prosecutor in front of a Dem judge. No wonder Gonzales wanted to clean house.
But a mistrial is not a trial. There is no finding of guilty or not guilty. It provides no jeopardy.
Double jeopardy only comes into play if there was a verdict, say, of not guilty and then there was another trial on the same charge and evidence.
There was no trial here.
So what are the rules regarding double jeopardy and using the same evidence at a second trial in the military judicial system?
“I want to buy a life insurance policy on him.”
Me, too. Do insurance policies pay if it’s a fragging? Oh, wait. We just passed an referendum here in Washington last Tuesday requiring they pay legitimate claims.