Case closed, Zimmerman's a gonner

[testarosa]

Of course the DA's office can offer him a deal, or try him, or not try him, in case of a mistrial.

No. They. Can't.

If there is 1 no vote, it mistrials and they do not offer him a deal, they must bring the case again.

Your affirmation, Testarosa. Give us the law, please.

Why on God's green earth would they give him a deal or he accept a deal on a mistrial?

 

[Papageorgio]

Looks like Zimmerman's friends are liars just like he is. Mr. Martin has never behaved with anything but quiet dignity throughout this whole thing. Suddenly he's just going to start cursing at someone who is holding the door for him? At the trial, with all kinds of people around? That's as ridiculous as Zimmerman's tale of Trayvon saying shit like "You're gonna die tonight."

Yep. Zimmerman's friend is lying.

On one hand...why would the friend lie? On the other, I cant really blame a parent for being a little hostile to their sons killers friends.

Its a long trial though and he should learn to control his emotions or he wont be allowed to sit in the courtroom.

He doesn't need to control his emotions. He didn't say that. He didn't do that. Zimmerman's friend is a liar. Why would he lie? I don't know, why has Zimmerman told so many lies? Some people are just slime. Zimmerman, his family, his wife, his friends, all seem to be low lifes. I know it's hard for you to believe that as they are all Caucasians, and we all know it's only blacks who behave badly....... All white people are paragons of virtue.

How do you know for sure?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No. They. Can't.

If there is 1 no vote, it mistrials and they do not offer him a deal, they must bring the case again.

Your affirmation, Testarosa. Give us the law, please.

Why on God's green earth would they give him a deal or he accept a deal on a mistrial?

In other words, you have no idea if they can offer a deal or not.

OK

 

[Sunshine]

Morning poll indicates that 62% believe that the charges are probably or definitely true against GZ.

I think the may be, but the jury will have the final say at this level.

62% is great! It only takes 1 no and we're done here.

Well, not exactly done. All it takes is one to lead to a mistrial. Then the state can take him to court again or can offer him a deal.

Given the expense of THIS trial, I can assure you that the state is NOT bucking for there to be another. The state will do everything possible to wrap it up this go around.

 

[testarosa]

mistrial n. the termination of a trial before its normal conclusion because of a procedural error, statements by a witness, judge or attorney which prejudice a jury, a deadlock by a jury without reaching a verdict after lengthy deliberation (a "hung" jury), or the failure to complete a trial within the time set by the court. When such situations arise, the judge, either on his own initiative or upon the motion (request) of one of the parties will "declare a mistrial," dismiss the jury if there is one, and direct that the lawsuit or criminal prosecution be set for trial again, starting from the beginning. (See: trial)

 

[testarosa]

A mistrial in a criminal prosecution may prevent retrial under the Double Jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same offense, unless required by the interests of justice and depending on which party moved for the mistrial. Typically, there is no bar to a retrial if the defendant requests or consents to a mistrial. A retrial may be barred if the court grants a mistrial without the defendant's consent, or over his objection. If the mistrial results from judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, a retrial will be barred. In United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 91 S. Ct. 547, 27 L. Ed. 2d 543 (1971), the Supreme Court held that reprosecuting the defendant would constitute double jeopardy because the judge had abused his discretion in declaring a mistrial. On his own motion, the judge had declared a mistrial to enable government witnesses to consult with their own attorneys.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks for the posts, Testarosa. Sunshine makes sense if there is a problem with this trial that the DA may very well may not want to do it again.

Nothing that Testarosa has posted prevents the DA from a offering a deal in lieu of a new trial after a mistrial. The defendant will simply say "no" if he so wants.

 

[Sunshine]

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] - ????

Come out come out wherever you are.

I'm here. Just slept in a bit this morning. Have to get my hair straightened this afternoon. You know, gotta stay young and ravishing looking!

 

[testarosa]

Thanks for the posts, Testarosa. Sunshine makes sense if there is a problem with this trial that the DA may very well may not want to do it again.

Nothing that Testarosa has posted prevents the DA from a offering a deal in lieu of a new trial after a mistrial. The defendant will simply say "no" if he so wants.

They don't do a deal on a mistrial - they start all over again.

And as I said before, I seriously doubt they will do that. This is their one show.

 

[testarosa]

So what it boils down to is 1 no vote from the jury and he's walking.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for backing up. Yes, they probably would not do a deal in case of a mistrial. But nothing prevents it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So what it boils down to is 1 no vote from the jury and he's walking.

If there is a mistrial, the DA will probably try again. In a heartbeat.

 

[Sunshine]

A mistrial in a criminal prosecution may prevent retrial under the Double Jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same offense, unless required by the interests of justice and depending on which party moved for the mistrial. Typically, there is no bar to a retrial if the defendant requests or consents to a mistrial. A retrial may be barred if the court grants a mistrial without the defendant's consent, or over his objection. If the mistrial results from judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, a retrial will be barred. In United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 91 S. Ct. 547, 27 L. Ed. 2d 543 (1971), the Supreme Court held that reprosecuting the defendant would constitute double jeopardy because the judge had abused his discretion in declaring a mistrial. On his own motion, the judge had declared a mistrial to enable government witnesses to consult with their own attorneys.

If I recall correctly, double jeopardy attaches AFTER the jury is seated.

OK, yes, that is correct double jeopardy attaches once the jury is empaneled. So a mistrial after that does not further the interest of the prosecution.

Courts have provided much clearer guidance on the question of when jeopardy attaches, or begins. This question is crucial to answer because any action taken by the government before jeopardy attaches, such as dismissal of the indictment, will not prevent later proceedings against a person for the same offense. Once jeopardy has attached, the full panoply of protection against multiple prosecutions and punishments takes hold.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that jeopardy attaches during a jury trial when the jury is empanelled. In criminal cases tried by a judge without a jury, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn. Jeopardy begins in juvenile-delinquency adjudications when the court first hears evidence. If the defendant or juvenile enters a plea agreement with the prosecution, jeopardy does not attach until the court accepts the plea.

double jeopardy legal definition of double jeopardy. double jeopardy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[testarosa]

I doubt it, but okay. It's a possibility.

 

[testarosa]

A mistrial in a criminal prosecution may prevent retrial under the Double Jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same offense, unless required by the interests of justice and depending on which party moved for the mistrial. Typically, there is no bar to a retrial if the defendant requests or consents to a mistrial. A retrial may be barred if the court grants a mistrial without the defendant's consent, or over his objection. If the mistrial results from judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, a retrial will be barred. In United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 91 S. Ct. 547, 27 L. Ed. 2d 543 (1971), the Supreme Court held that reprosecuting the defendant would constitute double jeopardy because the judge had abused his discretion in declaring a mistrial. On his own motion, the judge had declared a mistrial to enable government witnesses to consult with their own attorneys.

If I recall correctly, double jeopardy attaches AFTER the jury is seated.

OK, yes, that is correct double jeopardy attaches once the jury is empaneled. So a mistrial after that does not further the interest of the prosecution.

Courts have provided much clearer guidance on the question of when jeopardy attaches, or begins. This question is crucial to answer because any action taken by the government before jeopardy attaches, such as dismissal of the indictment, will not prevent later proceedings against a person for the same offense. Once jeopardy has attached, the full panoply of protection against multiple prosecutions and punishments takes hold.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that jeopardy attaches during a jury trial when the jury is empanelled. In criminal cases tried by a judge without a jury, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn. Jeopardy begins in juvenile-delinquency adjudications when the court first hears evidence. If the defendant or juvenile enters a plea agreement with the prosecution, jeopardy does not attach until the court accepts the plea.

double jeopardy legal definition of double jeopardy. double jeopardy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'm glad this part actually came up, I hadn't thought of mistrial/double jeopardy and didn't know how that applied.

 

[thanatos144]

This whole trial is a travesty. More proof that people see race over truth.

Welcome to my nightmare

 

[squeeze berry]

This whole trial is a travesty. More proof that people see race over truth.

Welcome to my nightmare

example: Barack Obama, but then he has a history of that

 

[Sunshine]

So what it boils down to is 1 no vote from the jury and he's walking.

I think the SCOTUS resolved the hung jury/double jeopardy question in US v Perez.

The discharge of the jury from giving a verdict in a capital case, without the consent of the prisoner, the jury being unable to agree, is not a bar to a subsequent trial for the same offence.

The court is invested with the discretionary authority of discharging the jury from giving any verdict in cases of this nature whenever, in their opinion, there is a manifest necessity for such an act or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.

United States v. Perez - 22 U.S. 579 (1824) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

This remains the rule in criminal trials.

He could still be retried, but I think given the expense the state will do everything possible to prevent that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Currently the prosecution is arguing the relevance of a piece of evidence it presented yesterday, O'Mara objected to the relevance of the August 2011 call to which the prosecution claimed it needs to establish Zimmerman's state of mind before the shooting. They have just proffered the evidence, with four other calls included.

 

[testarosa]

Thanks for the posts, Testarosa. Sunshine makes sense if there is a problem with this trial that the DA may very well may not want to do it again.

Nothing that Testarosa has posted prevents the DA from a offering a deal in lieu of a new trial after a mistrial. The defendant will simply say "no" if he so wants.

It may be the Jodi trial is muddying the issue. In that trial she is already CONVICTED of M1, the death penalty phase mistrialed, the death penalty phase is a little trial in itself, but she is already CONVICTED, so there has been talk of a deal and not proceeding with the dp phase again. On that trial, I doubt that will happened and the prosecution will probably press forward and retry the death penalty phase.