The forewoman reported in open court that the jury did, in fact reach a verdict of not guilty on both murder charges but they were deadlocked on the lesser charges.
From the dissenting opinion:
The forewoman reported that the jury had not voted on negligent homicide because the jurors “couldn’t get past the manslaughter” count on which they were deadlocked. Id., at 65.
In this context, the forewoman’s announcement in open court that the jury was “unanimous against” conviction on capital and first-degree murder, id., at 64–65, was an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.2 Per Arkansas law, the jury’s determination of reasonable doubt as to those offenses was an acquittal “in essence.” Hughes, 347 Ark., at 707, 66 S. W. 3d, at 651. By deciding that the State “had failed to come forward with sufficient proof,”the jury resolved the charges of capital and first-degree murder adversely to the State. Burks, 437 U. S., at 10. That acquittal cannot be reconsidered without putting Blueford twice in jeopardy.
But they still went back and were in further deliberation, having never made an official acquittal, as was the MAJORITY opinion. They were then dismissed.
All of the jurors were never questioned as to guilty or not guilty and never signed off on any verdict.
Do you think if any jury foreman states in any open court not guilty that should just be the end of it, regardless of any other circumstances?
The judge sent the jurors back for more deliberations, but half an hour later the forewoman reported no verdict. The court declared a mistrial.
It was a mistrial. OF COURSE the scumbag can be retried.
The jury was charged with walking down a ladder of charges, beginning with the most serious charge and ending with the least serious (or, complete acquittal). The jury never concluded its work, a mistrial was declared, and it was only at this point that the judge banged his gavel. Just because this jury got stuck walking down the ladder doesn't mean they couldn't, upon further deliberation, walk back UP the ladder to the more serious charges.
Anyway, sorry, but, "the forewoman told the judge", just doesn't cut it.
I you are acquited of murder, and they can’t agree on manslaughter and negligent homicide, then how can they retry you on that same event?
In my opinion, there’s something wrong with the prosecutor being able to list different kinds of charges for the same offense just to see which one sticks.
Sounds like the prosecutor is the problem, and that a system is the problem when it enables the prosecutor to get more than one bite at the apple to begin with.
If the guy thought it was murder then he should have charged murder, period. Or manslaughter. Or negligent homicide.
That appears to me to be the problem with the system. Prosecutors should have to decide on one trial. It sounds like he over-charged just as a gamble, and now he’s being rewarded for piling on.
The double jeopardy freedom should also preclude multiple charges for the same offense....to include the “violating civil rights” catch-all.