Active Now

Element 99
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Can a judge override a jury? If the knee-in-the-neck MURDERER and his 3 cop aiders and abettors skate can the judge throw out the verdict?
RosieG

Can a judge override a jury? If the knee-in-the-neck MURDERER and his 3 cop aiders and abettors skate can the judge throw out the verdict?

Can he/she declare a mistrail for miscarriage of justice and begin anew with another trial or can the judge actually judge and imprison them for life with no possibility of parole?

How does that work?

I remember when Orange Juice was declared not guilty and many of us were shocked but many of you rejoinced. Screw whitey was the mantra then. Hatred for the police was all it took for the jury to find orange juice not guilty. We knew he murdered his wife and her friend. Why didn't the judge override then? The prosecution didn't present a solid enough case? There were NEVER ANY OTHER SUSPECTS but orange juice and remember his speeding in that white vehicle on the freeway trying to GET AWAY? What was that all about if not admission of guilt? Even so even though he skated.

Will this murderer and his aider abettors skate too? I dunno. Odds are they will based on past juries who refuse to convict cops of anything but bad luck. This time I hope not because this time the ourage will explode and nothing will hold it back. Not hoping for just dreading that probable possibility. YOU?

Posted - June 5, 2020
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6023
    No ... because of the "double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    However, as we saw in the Rodney King case, the government gets around that not by declaring a mistrial ... but by charging the person for the same act, with a different crime in a different court.
      June 5, 2020 6:59 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Here we go m'dear. What about those cases that are taken to a higher court because the defendant doesn't like the verdict? What about the cases that end up in the court of last resort...The Supreme Court. Cases are argued there that were argued before elsewhere and a verdict was given. SCOTUS can either come up with a different finding and reverse the lower court dcision OR it can send the case back down to the lower court because it wants that court to be the decider. So how is that not double jeopardy? And also I'm going to ask a question about that. It doesn't seem fair to me. Thank you for your reply Walt and Happy Friday to thee! :)
      June 5, 2020 7:51 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    Those are not "double jeopardy" because the defendant was found guilty, and is appealing the verdict.

    "Double jeopardy" is when a defendant is found not-guilty, and the government attempts to retry the case with the same charges so that it gets a guilty verdict.

    If there is a mistrial or a "hung jury" ... so there is no verdict either way ... it is also not "double jeopardy" to retry the case with the same charges.
      June 5, 2020 8:15 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Why would anyone appeal a verdict of not guilty Walt? isn't that a given? C'mon!

    You don't just retry a case as is. NEW EVIDENCE IS UNCOVERED THAT PROVES GUILT. So why wouldn't it be a GOOD THING to convict the guilty person of what he/she did? Why wasn't that evidence presented in the first trial?. It might have been purposely withheld or not yet discovered. A witness might have not wanted to get involved but the guilt of letting a guilty person walk got to him/her. I don't know why. It just seems REASONABLE and LOGICAL that when NEW EVIDENCE is presented in a case it should be dealt with legally. An innocent man gets freed and a guilty man goes to jail BASED ON THE EVIDENCE. I can't see any fault with that Walt! This post was edited by RosieG at June 5, 2020 8:23 AM MDT
      June 5, 2020 8:21 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    Remember, the first 10 Amendments are to protect the citizens from government.
    Without the "double jeopardy" clause, the government could keep someone in jail until they got the guilty verdict.
    Remember, this was a common practice of European monarchies at the time of our Revolution.

    And just like how sometimes the government "finds" ballots that were somehow "misplaced" ... they could "find" new "evidence" that wasn't previously presented.

    What if the police "just know" someone is guilty?  After the person is found not-guilty by a jury, what is to stop the police from manufacturing "newly discovered evidence"?  I mean, there's already cases of innocent people in jail because the police/DA created false evidence.
      June 5, 2020 11:15 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    OY VEY WALT! Okey dokey. I get the message (finally). So we are screwed no matter how you slice it? No surprise there. Once again thanks for hanging in. I don't intend to be a blockhead but sometimes it just turns out that way! :)
      June 5, 2020 11:25 AM MDT
    0