Daedalus27: Some here seem to be under the impression that a DA's office loves nothing better than to retry cases that could have been resolved with lesser included charges. Except in very special cases or certain offices, that is probably preaty far off the mark. Much like the rest of the economy, counties and court systems are extremely stressed due to budget cuts. They have horrible backlogs on the civil side due to the fact that the Constitution demands criminal cases be addressed under time pressures. Most prosecutors have dozens of cases on their plates and want things resolved without having to revisit cases over and over again in search of a conviction. Prosecutors don't have the resources and courts don't have the court days to spend time in this manner when there are more cases that have to have their day in court.

From the nature of the verdict, I think all the justices agreed that the trial judge didn't do the best job. That being said, he applied the state law in the manner he felt was required and the state courts did not overturn his decision. It is not as if the basis for the procedural rule is invalid as there is a rational basis for believing that verdicts could be coerced or reached in an inappropriate manner if all charges could be considered in any order. That being said, I tend to agree with the dissent that there should be a procedure to record partial verdicts where the jury has explicitly rendered a verdict on the more serious charges. This would increase judicial efficiency by concerning the retrial (if it is utilized) only with matters that were in dispute.

And just to clarify, it wasn't the judge's role to record a partial verdict. He was bound by state law. The legislature needs to address this issue or there needs to be another case sent up before the federal courts specifically on the double jeopardy issue in these type of cases. This case wasn't the best candidate as there really was no verdict issued in the first trial and therefore the Supreme Court could dodge the issue on the procedural grounds. Courts will almost always take the easier route when it is available.

ArkAngel: lockers: vsavatar: Kit Fister: Homicider: lockers: Otherwise one crime can be retried indefinitely, bypassing double jeopardy, just like this one did.

...and again, I have no idea why some of you are so intent on misrepresenting this case. No, one crime can not be retried indefinitely. If the jury had handed down a verdict, as is their job to do, then the case would be over. Some of you are making it sound like the judge just didn't like the verdict, and therefore ordered a new trial. That's not what happened. There was no verdict.

Yeah, wait til they hear about judges being able to set aside verdicts/enter directed verdicts...

A judge CANNOT set aside a verdict of acquittal nor can one give a directed verdict of conviction. That is a massive Sixth Amendment violation. Judge can do that in civil cases, and we're pretty much fine with that because it cuts both ways, and because money isn't as important as someone's freedom or life.

Okay criminal defense attorney, which states are you allowed to practice. What does state law applicable here say about charging someone with a range of degrees to the same crime? Were the charges, on their own, illegal? What part of this state law screams due process to you?

SCOTUS already said in Beck v. Alabama that on any capital charge, the jury must be given instructions on being able to convict of a lesser included offense. This helps keep it from being a "death penalty or he goes free situation"

Instructions were given, those instructions said that they couldn't aquit or convict, hence the mistrial. Partial verdict is the best they could hope for, which isn't required of the state. I disagree about multiple charges per transaction, so this is consistent with my philosphy.

DoctorCal: Canned Tamales: The jury was interfered with and prevented from making a verdict by the judge law.

Arkansas doesn't allow partial verdicts. Scan the Cornell Law link above.

However, just as a point of order, I suspect that's why this case was presented to SCOTUS. To determine if that law was constitutional. Which, of course, it now is.

If I am to understand this right, the prosecution sends the plea bargain straight for the jury to decide. If they don't accept then you find a new one that does.

I have to disagree with SCOTUS on this one. Maybe. If the jury foreman said that they find the defendant not guilty of First Degree Murder and Capital Murder, that stands regardless of whether they deadlocked on the lesser offenses.

But not enough in TFA to know whether they said it like that, or mentioned that they all seemed to agree that First Degree Murder wasn't appropriate.
The two are NOT the same. If there was no pronouncement of verdict, it's a mistrial. Fortunately, this is a modern country, and we record courtroom activities.

This was simply the first time this sort of attempt at defense was set before scotus. Murder necessitates this so called laundry list of charges, the jury must deliberate what charge is deserved after being presented with the evidence, as there are differing levels of intent to any alleged murder. If it were necessary to choose just one charge, then you'd end up with a capital punishment or nothing situation, or you would find that each charge would need a separate hearing putting the defendant in a quadruple jeopardy situation. How is this confusing.

This jackass Supreme Court just found that the 5th Amendment is not in the Constitution,
and
that the same document states that corporations are human.

The leader of this pack, the Chief Jackass, could not correctly administer the oath of office of the President of the United States even though the 3-line oath is stated word-for-word in the Constitution he should be an expert on. This Chief J isn't qualified to be a JP.

RoyBatty: On the other hand, I think the whole, "we're going to give you a laundry list of charges, please stop after you've selected one" is pretty much entirely bullshiat.

Charge a specific crime.

THIS.

Make a case and stick to it.

DamnYankees: I disagree with the court - if the jury was unanimous in rejecting a charge, I think jeopardy should attach. That said, I think this is a very difficult question and I don't think ruling the other way is egregious or anything.

So more or less - to be clarified on another day in another trial if such a situation comes up and gets to the supreme court, and nothing was really settled for now?

Bucky Katt: You can't throw everything plus the kitchen sink at him and hope something sticks.

Obviously, you can. Reading this thread reminds me of the immortal scene from "The Life of Brian":

Stan: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!?!
Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But ... you can't HAVE babies!
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?

Except in this case, it's more like:

Farker: You can't charge a person for multiple offenses based on the same crime!
Me: Yes you can.
Farker: No you can't!
Me: The courts say you can. The law says you can. The Supreme Court says you can.
Farker: But you can't!
Me: *heavy, heavy sigh*

There's no point arguing over what a bunch of Farkersthink the law should be. There's only what the law actually is. And the law is very clear. You not only can charge a person with various levels of crimes, you're required to do so if you plan on keeping your job as a DA. Attorneys and judges are bound by rule of law, not by popular opinion on Fark. And no, juries do NOT get to say "we're not going to give you a verdict, but we are going to tell you what what charges you're allowed to bring when you're forced to re-try this thing. If they wanted the guy to go free, they should have returned a "not guilty" verdict. And that's not just my opinion- it's the law.

So the prosecution can't figure out what actually happened, but the expect the jury to figure it out? If I were on the jury, that alone would give me pause.

Homicider: Bucky Katt: You can't throw everything plus the kitchen sink at him and hope something sticks.

Obviously, you can. Reading this thread reminds me of the immortal scene from "The Life of Brian":

Stan: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!?!
Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But ... you can't HAVE babies!
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?

Except in this case, it's more like:

Farker: You can't charge a person for multiple offenses based on the same crime!
Me: Yes you can.
Farker: No you can't!
Me: The courts say you can. The law says you can. The Supreme Court says you can.
Farker: But you can't!
Me: *heavy, heavy sigh*

There's no point arguing over what a bunch of Farkersthink the law should be. There's only what the law actually is. And the law is very clear. You not only can charge a person with various levels of crimes, you're required to do so if you plan on keeping your job as a DA. Attorneys and judges are bound by rule of law, not by popular opinion on Fark. And no, juries do NOT get to say "we're not going to give you a verdict, but we are going to tell you what what charges you're allowed to bring when you're forced to re-try this thing. If they wanted the guy to go free, they should have returned a "not guilty" verdict. And that's not just my opinion- it's the law.


You're being idiotically pedantic. People can have an opinion on what the law should be, and there's no reason they shouldn't feel free to argue why their opinion is ethically correct or more in line with what the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually say. (Apparently, you think justices writing up their dissenting opinions is a waste of time. Opinions don't matter, if they're not... THE LAW!)

And if, for some bizarre reason, you find such discussions here distressing, you can leave the thread devoted to discussing the issue.

And that's not just my opinion-

I hate feeding the trolls, but I have to address a point already made earlier.

The DA in this case believes that the evidence supports a 1st degree murder with special circumstances (death penalty level although only LWOP in this case) offense. If you can prove all the elements of that, it incorporates all of the other charges (you cant have a 1st degree murder without it already meeting the elements of 2nd degree, voluntary manslaughter, and negligent homicide). Thats why they are called lesser included offenses. The DA probably wanted only 1st degree and 2nd degree to be instructed, but if the defense moved to offer the alternative theories with evidence, the judge can and does allow them to be given to the jury. The DA doesn't have the final word on what the jury is instructed on, thats the judges responsibility. The DA doesn't like a laundry list as it gives the jury ample ways to "split the difference" and reach a lesser sentence. However, because the jury is given each of these instructions, the DA has to address each of the possible charges in order to cover the bases, hence the 4 theories. They are going to push for the 1st degree murder on down, usually in a manner that is, showing it meets the highest level charge and therefore it must meet these lessers if somehow you don't think it is warranted on the top charge. Four theories usually is the same damn scenario only with different levels of thought on the defendants intent or what the actions he took mean. Especially in a case like this where there are no eyewitnesses and conflicitng stories with medical evidence.

This jury had a short difficult time with the evidence and the judge let them give up. Heck, for the jury I recently served on we took a day and half to go over a couple car thefts and stolen property from those thefts. We deadlocked early on one of the charges, sent a couple notes, had some readback, and were still locked at the end of the day so we went home, came back and discussed it some more and eventually managed to come to a decision on a lesser included offense for that charge. However in the course of the deliberations we were 3-9 at some points then 10-2 at other points as people thought about different ways of interpreting things. A couple of us spoke with the DA and PD after, and thats exactly what they expected and wanted as neither wanted to deal with a retrial. Of course this was a simple case against a career criminal who we already convicted of 9 offenses so the one charge wasn't a major issue, but we treated it as such. I can't imagine spending less than a day on such a serious charge before giving up, much less a judge accepting that.

madgonad: StanTheMan: Smelly Pirate Hooker: 4 different charges for the same crime, just to see if one of them would stick? Boy, that must have been an airtight case the prosecution had.

Again, for the law-impaired, it is typically the defense trying to get the judge to add lesser included offenses to the jury instructions in homicide cases, so they have an "out" instead of picking murder. The prosecution typically fights such instructions, also for tactical reasons.

Notice i said "typically." Too disinterested in this case to do pro bono research.

That is 100% not true. Prosecutors want convictions, period. Throwing the laundry list obviously eliminates any risk in overcharging.

Really, and this is based on your experience as an attorney? Because I am one, who has worked both sides of the bar, I have friends who are federal judges, and I teach law. Not that that makes me infallible, but I definitely think you need to post your qualifications for that one, Mr. Chief Justice.

Gwendolyn: The jury never made an official decision.

FTFA : "The forewoman told the judge that the jury had unanimously agreed that Mr. Blueford was not guilty of capital or first-degree murder"

Retrying him on the charges where the jury couldn't come to an agreement I can understand. Retrying him on the charges where the jury agreed that he isn't guilty is bullshiat.

But a whole bunch of you posting here agree that the state should just be able to retry him over and over until they get the result they want.

JuggleGeek: Gwendolyn: The jury never made an official decision.

FTFA : "The forewoman told the judge that the jury had unanimously agreed that Mr. Blueford was not guilty of capital or first-degree murder"

Retrying him on the charges where the jury couldn't come to an agreement I can understand. Retrying him on the charges where the jury agreed that he isn't guilty is bullshiat.

But a whole bunch of you posting here agree that the state should just be able to retry him over and over until they get the result they want.

only until they get a result. a mistrial due to hung jury is not. If the defendant was granted a mistrial after being sentenced to life... or death, would you demand that the jury's decision be upheld?

MaudlinMutantMollusk: If the guy had incorporated himself we wouldn't be having this conversation

done

I don't know how I feel about this, so I'll leave it at that.

fdr: This jackass Supreme Court just found that the 5th Amendment is not in the Constitution,
and
that the same document states that corporations are human.

The leader of this pack, the Chief Jackass, could not correctly administer the oath of office of the President of the United States even though the 3-line oath is stated word-for-word in the Constitution he should be an expert on. This Chief J isn't qualified to be a JP.

I'd recommend reading Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine." It's a couple justices outdated by now, but firstly, no one will accuse Toobin of having anything close to a conservative slant, and secondly, he himself along with pretty much everyone else agreed he was extremely well qualified to be Chief Justice. You may not like his judicial philosophy but I almost never hear his qualifications questioned.

One issue I'm still unclear on, and someone brought this up upthread but I didn't see an answer, apologies if there was one-

Does anyone know the scope? The way I'd imagine this to work is for charges that are only mutually exclusive. IOW, in this case, by definition, the jury cannot find him guilty on more than one of the four charges brought forth by the prosecutor. If he's guilty of murder 1, by definition he isn't guilty of murder 2 for the same act.

If the retrying of unrelated charges were allowed, I'd be with the minority on this one. For instance if he also broke in and was charged with criminal trespassing, the jury found him not guilty on the capital, murders 1 and 2 and manslaughter but was hung on tresspassing, I believe the judge should be allowed to declare a partial mistrial.

Can both of the above scenarios now be retried or just the first?

I agree with SCOTUS, but I think the judge could have ruled that he was acquitted of the 2 major offenses, at the very least the defendants lawyers should have argued that in court.

fark'emfeed'emfish: only until they get a result. a mistrial due to hung jury is not.

The jury wasn't hung on capital murder or first-degree murder. They returned "not guilty" on those.

I am very happy to see that Sotomayor has turned out to be consistently among the strongest and most vocal defenders of civil liberties on the court. I hope she lives a long, long time.

I had a conversation with my brother who just retired 25 years in the military and his response was as follows essentially that he doesn't mind having an infinite number of retrials as long as the guy actually did it. This kind of creates a strange conundrum doesn't it? If one jury decides that the guy did do it and the other decides he didn't do it, why is the jury who decided he did do it correct? It also premises the allowance of a retrial on whether the person actually committed the crime, which of course can only be decided by the jury, so it creates a chicken/egg problem.

His line of thinking is exactly this "you can't allow the chance of an erroneous conviction to interfere with justice being served." Those are his exact words. The scary part of this is, from the people I've talked to, this is what the average American actually believes. Apparently history does repeat itself, because we as a country can't seem to learn from the past. Our ancestors came to this country to avoid bullshiat like this in England where you were retried over and over again until found guilty. And now nearly half the country wants to literally remove the DJ clause from the Constitution, because they want to make sure the big evil bad people are punished, no matter how many innocent men go to their deaths as a result. What the fark is wrong with people now?

JuggleGeek: fark'emfeed'emfish: only until they get a result. a mistrial due to hung jury is not.

The jury wasn't hung on capital murder or first-degree murder. They returned "not guilty" on those.

As they did not come to a conclusion overall, because the charges are all related to one crime, and because that crime is alleged murder, the next jury is required to hear all of the evidence and make a decision regarding the intent of the defendant. These are not in fact multiple charges, but differing degrees of responsibility. As I stated earlier to another farker, if it were a case that had gone the other way, if the defendant were granted a mistrial after being sentenced to capital murder, could you expect that the jury's decision be upheld? Would you expect that the capital option be thrown out of the proceedings entirely, or would you expect the defendant to have a new trial with everything on the table(aside from whatever factor qualified for mistrial) and a new jury? This is a fine line, the law cuts both ways.

Mose: One issue I'm still unclear on, and someone brought this up upthread but I didn't see an answer, apologies if there was one-

Does anyone know the scope? The way I'd imagine this to work is for charges that are only mutually exclusive. IOW, in this case, by definition, the jury cannot find him guilty on more than one of the four charges brought forth by the prosecutor. If he's guilty of murder 1, by definition he isn't guilty of murder 2 for the same act.

If the retrying of unrelated charges were allowed, I'd be with the minority on this one. For instance if he also broke in and was charged with criminal trespassing, the jury found him not guilty on the capital, murders 1 and 2 and manslaughter but was hung on tresspassing, I believe the judge should be allowed to declare a partial mistrial.

Can both of the above scenarios now be retried or just the first?

I'll use the example of shooting someone during a robbery after you had held them in the bank vault for an hour. Jeopardy is based on the single act resulting in the crime. In this case we have a Murder (and all it's varying degrees) for which the defendant would be tried for the act of killing another human being..the actual shooting of the gun. With murder, there are a subset of crimes ranging from Captial Murder all the way down to manslaughter. All the states title them differently but for the most part a killing falls into one of the categories based on whether it was negligent, reckless, intentional, or premeditated. Theoretically, it would even be possible to have attempted murder and assault as part of the subset if you could prove that the defendant shot the victim but the jury disagreed that it was the cause of death. For the act of robbing the store, you have robbery. For the act of keeping someone against their will for an hour you have kidnapping. These are the three distinct acts for jeopardy purposes. The jury could acquit the defendant on all aspects of the murder, hang on the kidnapping, and convict on robbery. This would be a partial mistrial, and they would only be able to retry the defendant for the kidnapping.

In the Arkansas case, unlike most other jurisdictions, the state won't allow juries to acquit/convict on each of the varying subsets of the murder. They require that the jury consider the harshest one, vote on it, and keep working their way down the list until they all agree on which of the degrees they are convicting on. Because they never all agreed on which of the four they were picking, it is technically a hung jury on all of the four. This decision would only allow a retrial on the murder and its varying degrees...not any other "related" crime such as robbery or kidnapping.

Cataholic: Mose: One issue I'm still unclear on, and someone brought this up upthread but I didn't see an answer, apologies if there was one-

Does anyone know the scope? The way I'd imagine this to work is for charges that are only mutually exclusive. IOW, in this case, by definition, the jury cannot find him guilty on more than one of the four charges brought forth by the prosecutor. If he's guilty of murder 1, by definition he isn't guilty of murder 2 for the same act.

If the retrying of unrelated charges were allowed, I'd be with the minority on this one. For instance if he also broke in and was charged with criminal trespassing, the jury found him not guilty on the capital, murders 1 and 2 and manslaughter but was hung on tresspassing, I believe the judge should be allowed to declare a partial mistrial.

Can both of the above scenarios now be retried or just the first?

I'll use the example of shooting someone during a robbery after you had held them in the bank vault for an hour. Jeopardy is based on the single act resulting in the crime. In this case we have a Murder (and all it's varying degrees) for which the defendant would be tried for the act of killing another human being..the actual shooting of the gun. With murder, there are a subset of crimes ranging from Captial Murder all the way down to manslaughter. All the states title them differently but for the most part a killing falls into one of the categories based on whether it was negligent, reckless, intentional, or premeditated. Theoretically, it would even be possible to have attempted murder and assault as part of the subset if you could prove that the defendant shot the victim but the jury disagreed that it was the cause of death. For the act of robbing the store, you have robbery. For the act of keeping someone against their will for an hour you have kidnapping. These are the three distinct acts for jeopardy purposes. The jury could acquit the defendant on all aspects of the murder, hang on the kidnapping, and convict on robbery. This would be a partial mistrial, and they would only be able to retry the defendant for the kidnapping.

In the Arkansas case, unlike most other jurisdictions, the state won't allow juries to acquit/convict on each of the varying subsets of the murder. They require that the jury consider the harshest one, vote on it, and keep working their way down the list until they all agree on which of the degrees they are convicting on. Because they never all agreed on which of the four they were picking, it is technically a hung jury on all of the four. This decision would only allow a retrial on the murder and its varying degrees...not any other "related" crime such as robbery or kidnapping.

Thanks for the the explanation. I more comfortable with the Supreme Court's ruling knowing that.

Hmmm...

;)