There was, an acquital on first degree murder charges for the offense of killing him.
Now they convicted her of voluntary manslaughter for the offense of killing him.
Different charges, same offense. Shouldn't last 30 minutes in an appeals court.
If they had convicted her on a charge regarding another offense, it would have been ok. As it is, this is as clear a case of double jeopardy as you will ever see.
Of course, they do it all the time in politically charged cases.
patent said>>>>Double jeopardy only applies if there is an actual decision in the first trial.
hopes said>>>There was, an acquital on first degree murder charges for the offense of killing him. Now they convicted her of voluntary manslaughter for the offense of killing him.
It appears they charged her in volunatry manslaughter the first time too. It was just deadlocked.
>>>Different charges, same offense. Shouldn't last 30 minutes in an appeals court.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>If they had convicted her on a charge regarding another offense, it would have been ok. As it is, this is as clear a case of double jeopardy as you will ever see.
No. It isn't. Double jeopardy is a legal doctrine with a specific meaning. It means that she can't be tried twice on the same charge. So she can't be tried twice on the first degree murder charges she was aquitted of. She can, however, be tried on the charges were there was a deadlock.
Otherwise criminal defendants would frequently get off on technicalities like the ones you propose. Frankly, that result would be anything but justice in most cases. Just because you don't like it here, don't think that there are caess that run the other way.
patent