[null and void]

I gotta side with the wise latina on this one.

Never thought I’d ever say that sentence.

*sigh*

[Cicero]

I agree. Roberts is wrong on this one, I think.

[Sporke]

I’m totally shocked by this decision. They couldn’t be more wrong... :-/

[Sporke]

I’m totally shocked by this decision. They couldn’t be more wrong... :-/

[HiTech RedNeck]

Perhaps more was appealed from this case than the USSC took up. Like the judge ought to have accepted the partial not guilty verdicts.

It seems to open the door for the prosecution and judge to engineer almost limitless mulligans.

[WackySam]

Bad, bad, very bad, decision.

[Talisker]

Outrageous.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The majority was right on this one. Until a jury has reached its verdict, any back and forth they have with the judge is just part of their deliberations.

There have been cases where juries have already decided, but asked the judge a last minute question, the answer to which changes the vote of one or more jurors, who notify the jury foreman.

Even more common, when a jury finds a defendant guilty, the defense can demand that each individual juror be polled to say, on their own, that yes, they did vote guilty. This is based on a suspicion that a juror was bullied into a verdict they disagreed with, or was just misheard by the foreman.

However, that being said, I think it was inappropriate for the prosecutor to present a whole gamut of charges for which the defendant could have been convicted for the same offense.

That is like a multiple choice question where four of the answers are “yes”, and only one is “no”. It is unbalanced in favor of conviction.

[P-Marlowe]

This is a dangerous precedent. It is one of those broken clock moments at SCOTUS.

[MacMattico]

I originally thought I disagreed with this decision, but after reading the whole article and thinking about it, the jury was dismissed and no verdict, not guilty or guilty on any charge was returned. Yes, the jurors said on an informal vote they didn't think the defendant was guilty of murder, but when the judge told them to go back and deliberate more, minds could have been changed. Jury's argue and change positions all the time. In many cases, the original vote could be for guilty but not unanimous and after more deliberation not guilty could be returned as the official, unanimous decision signed and agreed to by each jury member. This judge seems to have released this jury before any official verdict was reached, hence no double jeopardy. (In my non-attorney opinion.)

[Secret Agent Man]

This destroys the entire concept of double jeopardy.

Just have a judge dismiss a jury before verdicts because you don’t think it’s going the way you want, and you can retry a person again.

Not good.

[Michael.SF.]

Can we apply this decision to OJ?

[taxcontrol]

Seems to me that this is splitting a mighty fine hair.

[fortheDeclaration]

sounds more like a mistrial.

[Still Thinking]

Because the judge dismissed the jury when it was unable to reach agreement on lesser charges, Blueford was not officially cleared of any of the charges, the majority said, and thus may be retried.

A duly constituted jury reached a verdict on that charge. Would the prosecutor object if the situation were the reverse and the defense wanted the conviction overturned because the jury deadlocked on some other charges??? Has someone been sneaking crack into the donuts in the SCOTUS lunchroom?

[Jeff Chandler]

I don’t like this, but them’s the rules.

[goat granny]

the 3 old hags of Endore...

[GreenLanternCorps]

No legal verdict, no double jeopardy.

I can say I’m going to vote for candidate x all I want, but if I don’t actually go to the polling place and cast a legal ballot, it doesn’t count.

The same applies to juries. A poll of jurors in the course of deliberations without reaching a lawful verdict is just opinion. Procedures matter. Or would you like to have someone convicted on an informal straw poll instead of following the proper procedure?

The law in question may or may not be a good, or even a just law, but that is not the question. The question is does the law in question violate the right against double jeopardy? The answer is no, it may be a procedural technicality but it is a real distinction.