Support NeoGAF

[Jack Remington]

The ability to bring stacked charges is inherently unjust.

Please stop trying to bar-splain things like a hung jury. I'm fully aware of the facts of the case.

If the woman had been acquitted today on Murder 2 a year after being acquitted on Murder 1, lots of people would be talking about how outrageous it was that they made her stand two trials.

 

[KHarvey16]

The ability to bring stacked charges is inherently unjust.

Please stop trying to bar-splain things like a hung jury. I'm fully aware of the facts of the case.

If the woman had been acquitted today on Murder 2 a year after being acquitted on Murder 1, lots of people would be talking about how outrageous it was that they made her stand two trials.

What are you talking about? Why would anyone find that outrageous? She was charged with first degree with second degree as a lesser, included charge. This wasn't added after they failed to get a conviction on first degree murder. If she was acquitted of second degree murder after a mistrial, why would anyone be outraged over that process?

What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

 

[CLEEK]

Jack, here's some reading for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_included_offense

In murder cases, however, where a convicted defendant may face capital punishment, the United States Supreme Court has held that the court must instruct the jury that they may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense such as voluntary manslaughter.[1] The reasoning for this ruling is that jurors, given the options of convicting a less culpable killer or letting him go free, might opt to convict of a more serious crime than the facts warrant. Therefore, they must have at least one option that falls in between these extremes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Retrial_after_mistrial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Perez

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

The ability to bring stacked charges is inherently unjust.

Please stop trying to bar-splain things like a hung jury. I'm fully aware of the facts of the case.

If the woman had been acquitted today on Murder 2 a year after being acquitted on Murder 1, lots of people would be talking about how outrageous it was that they made her stand two trials.

You should explain a little more why you feel one charge and only one charge should be the rule, since most people here seem to think multiple charges and lesser included charges are fine. How do you feel about multiple charges for different offenses that arise out of the same act?

 

[Kettch]

In terms of how she was tried, I don't see anything to be outraged about here.

Whether she should have been found guilty or not, I'd have to spend a lot more time looking into the case.

 

[numble]

The ability to bring stacked charges is inherently unjust.

Please stop trying to bar-splain things like a hung jury. I'm fully aware of the facts of the case.

If the woman had been acquitted today on Murder 2 a year after being acquitted on Murder 1, lots of people would be talking about how outrageous it was that they made her stand two trials.

Why do you think it is unjust? If they bring a Murder 1 charge, and the jury concludes that the facts seem to indicate that she intentionally murdered the husband, but she did not plan it in advance, she should be let go?

 

[Dixon's Jet]

She should probably go to jail for killing her husband with a gun while her kids were in the next room and leaving wounds which suggest he was not resisting.

If she's guilty of second degree murder, so be it. This is not controversial.

 

[CLEEK]

Why do you think it is unjust? If they bring a Murder 1 charge, and the jury concludes that the facts seem to indicate that she intentionally murdered the husband, but she did not plan it in advance, she should be let go?

Or worse, if the first degree charge carries a death penalty and is the only option, the jury might convict her rather than letting her go free.

Lesser charges are there for good reason.

 

[numble]

Technically.

They shouldn't be able to stack them like that. Goes completely against the spirit of our Bill of Rights.

The ability to bring stacked charges is inherently unjust.

Technically, the Supreme Court has ruled that not allowing "stacked" charges is unjust:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/412/205/case.html

Although the lesser included offense doctrine developed at common law to assist the prosecution in cases where the evidence failed to establish some element of the offense originally charged, it is now beyond dispute that the defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find him guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.

...

Moreover, it is no answer to petitioner's demand for a jury instruction on a lesser offense to argue that a defendant may be better off without such an instruction. True, if the prosecution has not established beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged, and if no lesser offense instruction is offered, the jury must, as a theoretical matter, return a verdict of acquittal. But a defendant is entitled to a lesser offense instruction -- in this context or any other -- precisely because he should not be exposed to the substantial risk that the jury's practice will diverge from theory. Where one of the elements of the offense charged remains in doubt, but the defendant is plainly guilty of some offense, the jury is likely to resolve its doubts in favor of conviction. In the case before us, for example, an intent to commit serious bodily injury is a necessary element of the crime with which petitioner was charged, but not of the crime of simple assault. Since the nature of petitioner's intent was very much in dispute at trial, the jury could rationally have convicted him of simple assault if that option had been presented. But the jury was presented with only two options: convicting the defendant of assault with intent to commit great bodily injury or acquitting him outright. We cannot say that the availability of a third option -- convicting the defendant of simple assault -- could not have resulted in a different verdict. Indeed, while we have never explicitly held that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right of a defendant to have the jury instructed on a lesser included offense, it is nevertheless clear that a construction of the Major Crimes Act to preclude such an instruction would raise difficult constitutional questions."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/625/case.html

That safeguard would seem to be especially important in a case such as this. For when the evidence unquestionably establishes that the defendant is guilty of a serious, violent offense -- but leaves some doubt with respect to an element that would justify conviction of a capital offense -- the failure to give the jury the "third option" of convicting on a lesser included offense would seem inevitably to enhance the risk of an unwarranted conviction.

...

Thus, if the unavailability of a lesser included offense instruction enhances the risk of an unwarranted conviction, Alabama is constitutionally prohibited from withdrawing that option from the jury in a capital case.

 

[Jack Remington]

Jack, here's some reading for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_included_offense



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Retrial_after_mistrial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Perez

I'm aware of this, actually. My belief is that if they can't wrap up the lesser included offense in one trial, it's over.

The lesser included should be a jury option, not something the prosecution can keep in its back pocket.

The system that seems to fit best with the spirit of the Constitution would be something like this:

The prosecution can choose to charge someone with 1st degree, second degree, or manslaughter. The jury can choose to find the defendant guilty of a lesser offense than the one the prosecution charged the defendant with, but if they acquit on the charge the prosecution originally brought and fail to convict on the lesser charges, it's over.

The deck is far too stacked against the prosecution in this country already. Things like this just make my skin crawl. I imagine Adams, Jefferson et al would feel the same way.

 

[numble]

I'm aware of this, actually. My belief is that if they can't wrap up the lesser included offense in one trial, it's over.

The lesser included should be a jury option, not something the prosecution can keep in its back pocket.

The system that seems to fit best with the spirit of the Constitution would be something like this:

The prosecution can choose to charge someone with 1st degree, second degree, or manslaughter. The jury can choose to find the defendant guilty of a lesser offense than the one the prosecution charged the defendant with, but if they acquit on the charge the prosecution originally brought and fail to convict on the lesser charges, it's over.

The deck is far too stacked against the prosecution in this country already. Things like this just make my skin crawl. I imagine Adams, Jefferson et al would feel the same way.

Perez was decided in 1824, by John Marshall, who was one of the Constitution's ratifiers. It was also decided before Adams and Jefferson died. I guess we can actually do research into what they thought of the decision.

 

[Jack Remington]

numble, none of what you quoted contradicts anything I've said.

Perez is so different from this case as to be completely irrelevant.

 

[numble]

numble, none of what you quoted contradicts anything I've said.

Perez is so different from this case as to be completely irrelevant.

Please elaborate. You are just claiming that it doesn't contradict, I think all of what I quoted contradicts things you've said.

Perez speaks specifically about mistrials, like this case.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm aware of this, actually. My belief is that if they can't wrap up the lesser included offense in one trial, it's over.

The lesser included should be a jury option, not something the prosecution can keep in its back pocket.

The system that seems to fit best with the spirit of the Constitution would be something like this:

The prosecution can choose to charge someone with 1st degree, second degree, or manslaughter. The jury can choose to find the defendant guilty of a lesser offense than the one the prosecution charged the defendant with, but if they acquit on the charge the prosecution originally brought and fail to convict on the lesser charges, it's over.

The deck is far too stacked against the prosecution in this country already. Things like this just make my skin crawl. I imagine Adams, Jefferson et al would feel the same way.

How can you agree lesser included charges are ok but not that they can lead to a mistrial? That doesn't make sense. It's a charge the jury need to evaluate, and if they aren't unanimous you think it should just go away forever?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Jack, would you have been okay if they acquitted on both 1st and 2nd degree murder charges instead of acquitting on 1st degree and being hung on 2nd degree? If they had acquitted on 1st and convicted on 2nd?

Is the problem you have the fact that you feel like there were "two trials" separated by a year?

 

[numble]

How can you agree lesser included charges are ok but not that they can lead to a mistrial? That doesn't make sense. It's a charge the jury need to evaluate, and if they aren't unanimous you think it should just go away forever?

If you look at the vote breakdowns, seems 5 jurors wanted to acquit on everything, 7 jurors wanted to charge something. Based on Jack Remington's idea of fairness, this should mean that 7-5 votes in favor of a lesser charge means that the defendant should be acquited of all charges.

 

[KeRaSh]

This reminds me a little of the movie "Fractured" to be honest.

 

[Metaphoreus]

If you think that is unconstitutional, you have never read your own constitution.

This isn't fair. The Constitution says nothing about mistrials, so it's not obvious merely from reading it that the Double Jeopardy Clause wouldn't prohibit retrial in that case.

 

[uncelestial]

Apparently the OP doesn't know what "mistrial" means.

The alleged DV means very little, as well; you can't just walk into the room and shoot someone while your kids are watching cartoons in the other room. Unless there was some kind of life or death struggle going on at the moment she killed her husband, she is a murderer.

 

[CLEEK]

The prosecution can choose to charge someone with 1st degree, second degree, or manslaughter. The jury can choose to find the defendant guilty of a lesser offense than the one the prosecution charged the defendant with, but if they acquit on the charge the prosecution originally brought and fail to convict on the lesser charges, it's over.

The deck is far too stacked against the prosecution in this country already. Things like this just make my skin crawl. I imagine Adams, Jefferson et al would feel the same way.

You're contradicting yourself.

You think the system is already stacked against the prosecution. Yet you want to introduce a system that reduces the chance of a conviction. Your proposed system benfits the defendant.

In your bolded scenario, a hung jury would see the defendant walk free. In the current system the defendant still has to face the charges brought against them in a retrial.

In this case, the defendant could be guilty of second degree murder, but you're proposing she would go free due to the jury being hung when deciding on that charge.

 

[Jack Remington]

How can you agree lesser included charges are ok but not that they can lead to a mistrial? That doesn't make sense. It's a charge the jury need to evaluate, and if they aren't unanimous you think it should just go away forever?

Yes. For several reasons.

Lesser included should be an option for the jury, but the jury shouldn't be obligated to reach a verdict on them. They should be something that the jury can reach. Basically the prosecution should only be able to formally bring a single charge for a single given action, and if the defendant is acquitted of that charge and the jury declines to convict on a lesser charge, it's over. It's not "We're charging you for Murder 1 AND Murder 2 AND manslaughter." It's "We're charging you with Murder 1, and the jury can find you guilty of Murder 2 if they so choose."

It would likely have a small deterring effect on over-prosecuting, which I consider a major blight on our nation.

Finally, the prosecution has such a huge advantage that there's some chance a completely innocent person would be wrongly convicted in a second trial. The prosecution gets another shot, a chance to adjust their strategy, tweak their cross-examining, etc. So does the defense, but in most cases the level of resources on each side isn't remotely comparable. Plus the whole "better to let ten guilty go unpunished..." maxim, which I believe is hugely important.

I realize that different people have different notions of justice and that these notions may be even be idiosyncratic. This particular case is so deeply offensive to me that I can't believe so many people could disagree, but here we are.

Probably nothing left for me to really say at this point.

Has this exact legal question ever made it to the Supreme Court? The cases cited so far only concern elements of the question, not this exact one.

 

[numble]

Yes. For several reasons.

Lesser included should be an option for the jury, but the jury shouldn't be obligated to reach a verdict on them. They should be something that the jury can reach. Basically the prosecution should only be able to formally bring a single charge for a single given action, and if the defendant is acquitted of that charge and the jury declines to convict on a lesser charge, it's over. It's not "We're charging you for Murder 1 AND Murder 2 AND manslaughter." It's "We're charging you with Murder 1, and the jury can find you guilty of Murder 2 if they so choose."

It would likely have a small deterring effect on over-prosecuting, which I consider a major blight on our nation.

Finally, the prosecution has such a huge advantage that there's some chance a completely innocent person would be wrongly convicted in a second trial. The prosecution gets another shot, a chance to adjust their strategy, tweak their cross-examining, etc. So does the defense, but in most cases the level of resources on each side isn't remotely comparable. Plus the whole "better to let ten guilty go unpunished..." maxim, which I believe is hugely important.

I realize that different people have different notions of justice and that these notions may be even be idiosyncratic. This particular case is so deeply offensive to me that I can't believe so many people could disagree, but here we are.

Probably nothing left for me to really say at this point.

Has this exact legal question ever made it to the Supreme Court? The cases cited so far only concern elements of the question, not this exact one.

The jury did not decline to convict on the lesser included charge, they were deadlocked on whether or not to convict. By your measure, a jury that deadlocks 7-5 in favor of convicting on Murder 1 means they "declined to convict" on the Murder 1, instead of resulting in a mistrial.

The Supreme Court has already looked at this question in Blueford v. Arkansas. Both the opinion and dissent in that case agree that an acquittal on a greater offense and a mistrial on lesser included offense would not invoke double jeopardy on a retrial for the lesser included offense.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Yes. For several reasons.

Lesser included should be an option for the jury, but the jury shouldn't be obligated to reach a verdict on them. They should be something that the jury can reach. Basically the prosecution should only be able to formally bring a single charge for a single given action, and if the defendant is acquitted of that charge and the jury declines to convict on a lesser charge, it's over. It's not "We're charging you for Murder 1 AND Murder 2 AND manslaughter." It's "We're charging you with Murder 1, and the jury can find you guilty of Murder 2 if they so choose."

It would likely have a small deterring effect on over-prosecuting, which I consider a major blight on our nation.

I don't really follow this alternative you're proposing. What's the functional difference between a jury being asked "the defendant has been charged with first degree murder, and the lesser included charge of second degree murder" and "the defendant has been charged with first degree murder, but you as a jury can choose to find him guilty of second degree murder instead"? It's functionally the exact same choice being asked of the jury.

Edit: What you have to realize is that juries never decide anything on their own without being instructed as to the standards that must be met. In order for the jury to have the option to choose second degree murder "on their own" they would need to receive detailed instructions as to the legal standards of first degree murder and second degree murder. Then they would need to be told that if they don't believe that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder they have the option of finding him guilty of second degree murder. That's the exact same process.

 

[ZackieChan]

The jury did not decline to convict on the lesser included charge, they were deadlocked on whether or not to convict. By your measure, a jury that deadlocks 7-5 in favor of convicting on Murder 1 means they "declined to convict" on the Murder 1, instead of resulting in a mistrial.

The Supreme Court has already looked at this question in Blueford v. Arkansas. Both the opinion and dissent in that case agree that an acquittal on a greater offense and a mistrial on lesser included offense would not invoke double jeopardy on a retrial for the lesser included offense.

Hmm...Supreme Court vs. NeoGaf member Jack Remington? I know who I'm going with.

 

[Jack Remington]

I don't really follow this alternative you're proposing. What's the functional difference between a jury being asked "the defendant has been charged with first degree murder, and the lesser included charge of second degree murder" and "the defendant has been charged with first degree murder, but you as a jury can choose to find him guilty of second degree murder instead"? It's functionally the exact same choice being asked of the jury.

No mistrial on the lesser included.

Might stop prosecutors from shooting for the stars to hit the moon.

Edit: Blueford is a Kelo v New London or Gonzalez v Raich-tier fuckup. Good Christ. Even people who disagree with me in this thread should read up on this case.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

No mistrial on the lesser included.

Might stop prosecutors from shooting for the stars to hit the moon.

So it's really just this one specific situation that bothers you?

 

[numble]

No mistrial on the lesser included.

Might stop prosecutors from shooting for the stars to hit the moon.

They are still making a decision on a conviction. If there can be no mistrial, then you also can't require them to adhere to other rules required for jury decisions, so that a simple majority 7-5 can convict, instead of an unanimous vote required.

If it turns out that the jury was bribed to convict of a lesser included offense, or if the jury foreman lied about how they decided on the lesser included offense, or if some other action causes tainting of the jury to result in a lesser included offense verdict, can there be a mistrial?

 

[Jack Remington]

So it's really just this one specific situation that bothers you?

Overzealous and overpowered prosecutors really, really bother me.

It's clear I've lost this argument in the NeoGAF court of public opinion though.

 

[A Link to the Past]

It sounds like it could just get reversed on appeal due to the fact that they retried her after she was acquitted.

 

[Jack Remington]

It sounds like it could just get reversed on appeal due to the fact that they retried her after she was acquitted.

It definitely won't.

I always assumed this was legal, and it clearly is. My argument was that it's unjust.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

It definitely won't.

I always assumed this was legal, and it clearly is. My argument was that it's unjust.

Does a retrial after any hung jury bother you, or only when combined with an acquittal on a more serious charge?

 

[Jack Remington]

Does a retrial after any hung jury bother you, or only when combined with an acquittal on a more serious charge?

I used to think a hung jury should be am automatic acquittal, sometimes I still do, but no, a normal hung jury and retrial doesn't bother me much. Except in The Man Who Wasn't There. Straight bullshit.

Edit: that wasn't a hung jury, just a mistrial.

 

[not psycho]

Yes. For several reasons.

Lesser included should be an option for the jury, but the jury shouldn't be obligated to reach a verdict on them. They should be something that the jury can reach. Basically the prosecution should only be able to formally bring a single charge for a single given action, and if the defendant is acquitted of that charge and the jury declines to convict on a lesser charge, it's over.

There may have been a retrial even with your proposed changes. One of the original jurors claims they only gave up on first-degree murder in the hopes of getting a second-degree murder conviction, so if they knew that a deadlock on the second-degree charge would result in acquittal they may have been unwilling to budge. Also, some other jurors may have been unwilling to acquit on first-degree murder (even if they believed it was actually second-degree murder) if they knew that a deadlock on second-degree murder would result in total acquittal.

“I was completely 100 percent convinced of first-degree murder,” said April Penning, who was Juror No. 4. “I don’t believe she was abused.”

Penning said she was the sole holdout for a conviction on that charge, but acquiesced in the hopes the panel would convict on second-degree murder.

Are there any studies which show juries are more likely to convict when prosecutors overcharge? Overcharging is a huge problem in the legal system, but its main effect is in the context of intimidation and plea deals. There is less reason to overcharge in a case like this (unless there was a plea offer) since it could potentially have caused a mistrial instead of a conviction (if one juror had been unwilling to consider lesser charges but all the rest would support the lesser charge).

Having said that, this case doesn't go down easy. But that is because the original jury was, as a majority, opposed to this conviction. There was apparently only one original juror who supported first-degree murder (and even they were willing to give up on it), and only 3 of the 12 who supported second-degree murder. This result feels wrong.

But what if the original jury was 11 out of 12 in favor of convicting on second-degree murder? That would have a different feel to it. So I don't think it is the ability to retry after a mistrial, specifically, that makes it feel wrong.

 

[Gattsu25]

Doesn't this violate the fifth amendment?

Shadow_Lord, since the OP seems dead set on keeping important context out of the OP can you please, in your initial response in post#2, edit in a link/quote/reference to Abicus' post that I quote below?

OK, so the first trial had first and second degree charges. There was an acquittal on the first degree to which double jeopardy attaches and a hung jury (9-3 in favor of acquittal) on the second degree so it was mistrialed and then retrialed as double jeopardy doesn't attach to a mistrial.

Either way, it's a really touchy thing going after murder in a domestic violence situation. It smacks of "this is wrong".