[P-Marlowe]

Am I reading this correctly up to this point?

The Constitution is unequivocal on this issue. You cannot be tried twice for the same offense. Here the Jury reached a unanimous verdict of not guilty on the murder charge. The prosecution charged a lot of lesser included offenses as a back up to the murder charge just in case they didn't win on that one. They lost on that one.

The bottom line is that the Jury acquitted the defendant of the crime of murder but because the jury could not reach a verdict on manslaughter or cheating on his taxes or whatever other crimes he was accused of during the trial, the judge did not accept the verdict and ordered a new trial on all issues including the murder charge that the Jury actually made a decision on.

This is a real travesty of justice. I've been seeing a lot of this kind of stuff lately and my confidence in the judicial system is at an all time low.

Roberts should be ashamed of this decision. Just because you are a conservative does not mean that you have to bend the law to put away criminal defendants. This guy probably deserved to be convicted, but he wasn't. The Constitution prohibits double jeopardy and this is as clear a case of double jeopardy as I can imagine.

[MacMattico]

Read the article. They never officially acquitted anyone of anything. That's the problem.

[xzins]

So, you’re saying that the jury was called in to announce it’s verdict....that the judge didn’t stop them PRIOR TO the end of their deliberations?

Is that right? (I don’t know if I’m asking this question well.)

I would absolutely oppose any retrial of the man if the jury walked into the courtroom and announced innocent on the first item, murder, but we’re hung on items 2, 3, 4, and 5.

If, however, (1) the jury was still in the jury room deliberating, and (2) they’d taken what amounted to a final poll on each of these items, and (3) they were unable to reach a decision except on one of them, and (4) they had not returned to the courtroom to announce, and (5) the judge dismissed them because they couldn’t decide, THEN, I’d say there is a technicality at play here.

Othewise, it doesn’t make sense why Scotus would rule what they did.

[terycarl]

Here the Jury reached a unanimous verdict of not guilty on the murder charge.

no they didn't they arrived at no verdict at all...certainly open to further charges.