The war on terrorism

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby dai bread » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:35 pm

Is it true that there is no appeal from a "not guilty" verdict in America? Or does it vary by State?

Just imagine the fun if OBL had been extradited, tried and acquitted on a technicality.
We have no money; we must use our brains. -Ernest Rutherford.
dai bread
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby Trumpetmaster » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:54 am

dai bread wrote:Is it true that there is no appeal from a "not guilty" verdict in America? Or does it vary by State?

Just imagine the fun if OBL had been extradited, tried and acquitted on a technicality.



It is called "Double Jeopardy" which is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same,
or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

It covers all of America.
Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.
Trumpetmaster
Patron
 
Posts: 11557
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:12 pm

Trumpetmaster wrote:
dai bread wrote:Is it true that there is no appeal from a "not guilty" verdict in America? Or does it vary by State?

Just imagine the fun if OBL had been extradited, tried and acquitted on a technicality.



It is called "Double Jeopardy" which is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same,
or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

It covers all of America.


One of the frequent mistakes people make is that double jeopardy does not prevent a state or federal government from trying a person found not guilty in another jurisdiction. In one case I worked on a G.I. found "not guilty" in a state trial was tried by a military courts martial, found guilty and sentenced to 24 yrs. in prison; I believe he's still in. Reversing that, on another case I investigated a G.I. sentenced to 11 years for arson committed in the state of New Jersey was released after three years on a military technicality (that, unfortunately, I had some blame) He walked out of Leavenworth and immediately was picked up by the New jersey state police and locked up in a New Jersey prison to serve another 10 years since he'd been tried concurrently in the state after the courts martial.

He, unfortunately, is loose and I hope he never finds me because one of us is going to get hurt, based on his threats to me when I caught him.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby Trumpetmaster » Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:52 am

Haggis@wk wrote:
Trumpetmaster wrote:
dai bread wrote:Is it true that there is no appeal from a "not guilty" verdict in America? Or does it vary by State?

Just imagine the fun if OBL had been extradited, tried and acquitted on a technicality.



It is called "Double Jeopardy" which is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same,
or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

It covers all of America.


One of the frequent mistakes people make is that double jeopardy does not prevent a state or federal government from trying a person found not guilty in another jurisdiction. In one case I worked on a G.I. found "not guilty" in a state trial was tried by a military courts martial, found guilty and sentenced to 24 yrs. in prison; I believe he's still in. Reversing that, on another case I investigated a G.I. sentenced to 11 years for arson committed in the state of New Jersey was released after three years on a military technicality (that, unfortunately, I had some blame) He walked out of Leavenworth and immediately was picked up by the New jersey state police and locked up in a New Jersey prison to serve another 10 years since he'd been tried concurrently in the state after the courts martial.

He, unfortunately, is loose and I hope he never finds me because one of us is going to get hurt, based on his threats to me when I caught him.



Haggis,
Was not aware of that.
Thanks for providing this information!
TM
Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.
Trumpetmaster
Patron
 
Posts: 11557
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby Shapley » Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:23 am

I've always believed that trying people in federal or military courts for crimes also tryed by state courts should be considered double jeopardy, based on the wording of the U.S. Constitution. However, that is usually 'gotten around' by trying suspects using different charges for the same crime in the various courts.

The federal trial of the policemen involved in the Rodney King beating is an example of this.

I've also opposed the idea of using civil courts to punish people who escape conviction in criminal courts, à la O. J. Simpson. I do not see how a person can be held financially liable for committing an act that, in the eyes of the law, he did not commit.

When I was in the Navy, they used to use Non-judicial punishment against sailors who had been tried, regardless of outcome, for secondary items related to the charge, but not the identical charges. For example, a person arrested for DWI might be charged with unauthorized absence if they were not released from the jail in time for muster. They might also be charged with 'conduct unbecoming' for their actions while under the influence.

I do agree that other states may try a person, however, so few crimes are committed in multiple jurisdictions that is seldom an issue. The Constitution clearly states that trials must be held in the state where the crime was committed, and that usually defines jurisdiction rather clearly. That is another issue I see violated, such as in the case of Timothy McVeigh.

The courts, of course, see it differently than I. That's just my opinion on the matter. Just because they get away with it, doesn't make it right.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby piqaboo » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:43 pm

I think the reason Timothy McV was tried out of state was the attempt to find a reasonably unbiased jury, in other words, it was considered to his benefit to have the venue moved.

---
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby Shapley » Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:57 pm

piqaboo wrote:I think the reason Timothy McV was tried out of state was the attempt to find a reasonably unbiased jury, in other words, it was considered to his benefit to have the venue moved.

---


That was the excuse used, but I think it is a slap in the face of Oklahoma to claim that we couldn't find twelve just men in the entire state.

Besides, the wording of the law is quite clear. It does not say the jurors have to be from the state, only that the trial be held there. Even if we accept that twelve just men could not be found in Oklahoma, it is not unreasonable to expect that they could be shipped there.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:40 am

Since he was tried in Federal court did the venue matter? I confess I'm totally ignorant in this instance
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:53 am

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby Haggis@wk » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:07 am

Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Gitmo open.

It’s as if all that international-law, humanitarian, have-you-no-decency crap was just . . . crap. And partisan crap at that.

No secret, but nice to make it clear. And to all the people who were yammering about this in 2007-2008: Don’t waste my time in the future.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The war on terrorism

Postby Haggis@wk » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:34 am

Eric Holder: Constitution Doesn’t Cover Terrorists, Even If They’re American Citizens.

Now with the both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street on the watch list that list of possible terrorists is getting pretty big.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Previous

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron