Casey Is NOT Safe From Double Jeopardy Laws?

[darnudes]

Just ask

William Dunlop
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/152_06/

Or

Mark Weston
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/13/loner-convicted-murder-double-jeopardy


Double jeopardy laws have been changed in England, Wales and some States of Australia. It can certainly happen in America and it can be retrospective. It only takes ONE person to take on the system and change it.

 

[Salem]

Please note the law changes were in England and other countries, not here in the US. But it may be something the US legislature would consider?

Salem

 

[ZsaZsa]

I would certainly vote for it to change.
It's obscene to see someone get away with the murder of a little child.

 

[MarthaM]

I can't see that ever happening here in the U.S. It would be too difficult to use here and it would take forever for each case to work its way through the courts to resolve questions of whether the standard of 'new and compelling' has been met. And I don't think the Supreme Court would ever call it constitutional.

 

[cluciano63]

No way this will happen...and pretty sure it would be retroactive anyway...

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Even if the double jeopardy laws did change, it most likely would only apply to people who committed their crimes after the law changed.

 

[cluciano63]

We don't even prosecute half the crimes that take place now...they only take on ones they feel sure they can win, they are not going to try people over and over...

 

[zadari]

yes she is safe from double jeopardy and yeah the laws would only apply to to crimes after the law changed .my cousin is a lawyer so i asked him LOL ..

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I doubt that the double jeopardy laws would ever change in this country. If they did change, it wouldn't be as simple as every DA in the country could just re-charge every person who had been acquitted in their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in every state would probably have to approve the request to go for a second trial, and the prosecution would have to show that they had discovered new damning evidence that hadn't been available at the time of the first trial, such as DNA.

 

[cluciano63]

It will never happen.

 

[Thinker Belle]

I am not getting my hopes up at all, but I do agree something needs to change. People keep saying it's sour system and we should just accept and respect it, but I simply cannot accept or respect a system that allows a child murderer to go free. Are reevaluation and reassessment not a good thing? Should we not frequently reflect on certain aspects of our system of justice and evaluate what things could be changed for the better?

 

[darnudes]

I can't see that ever happening here in the U.S. It would be too difficult to use here and it would take forever for each case to work its way through the courts to resolve questions of whether the standard of 'new and compelling' has been met. And I don't think the Supreme Court would ever call it constitutional.

Plenty of people said exactly the same thing in the UK and Australia, it can't be done, it won't happen, etc. but it did happen and the laws were changed and it could happen in the US as well.

The impetus for it occurring in England was the boasting of Billy Dunlop - it only takes one case and a hell of a lot of determination and lobbying by someone who believes in it enough.

 

[Nova24]

I'd like to see it change here in the US as well but even if it does it would be too late to use against ICA. It wouldn't be retroactive.

 

[STEADFAST]

Plenty of people said exactly the same thing in the UK and Australia, it can't be done, it won't happen, etc. but it did happen and the laws were changed and it could happen in the US as well.

The impetus for it occurring in England was the boasting of Billy Dunlop - it only takes one case and a hell of a lot of determination and lobbying by someone who believes in it enough.

It's galling to see a murderer go free and not be able to have another chance to bring justice. I hate the verdict! However, chipping away at the Fifth Amendment rights that we all share is, IMO, much more horrifying. Would we really want to give our local, state, and federal government the power to hound us, even if we are innocent of wrongdoing, with repeated trials, turning our lives to chaos and depleting all our resources? As taxpayers, would we want to foot the bill for multiple trials brought by prosecutors who might be hellbent on winning weak cases?

 

[JBean]

No way would I want this here in the US.

 

[greenfrog7997]

I do not respect the decision in the CA trial, but nor do I agree with changing double jeopardy laws. I do however support *some* sort of change after seeing this travesty of justice, but personally I believe it should lie more in the juror front.

 

[Racegirl]

Hi y'all, new here. I've been following along but had nothing new to add until now.

Here in my county, we DID have a murderer tried twice for the same crime. His first death sentence was overturned by another court. Believing that he was protected by 'Double Jeopardy' laws he wrote a letter to our Commonwealth Attorney Paul Ebert detailing the crimes. Mr. Ebert then found a way to bring a new charge and convict him to death again. He was executed last year.

http://http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86320

Point is, I'm assuming it wouldn't be double jeopardy if some kind of new evidence came to the surface so that a new charge could be brought. It may be wishful thinking, but this case came to mind after I heard the verdict.

More on this case: (I hope I did these links right)

http://http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2009/jul/12/powells_letter_to_commonwealths_attorney-ar-439028/

http://http://www2.insidenova.com/search/?source=all&query=paul+warner+powell

 

[kelian36]

One can't be found guilty of the same crime twice in the USA. But can one be tried again if found not guilty the first go round?

 

[MissJames]

One can't be found guilty of the same crime twice in the USA. But can one be tried again if found not guilty the first go round?

No,once there is a not guilty,it's done. You can't be tried again.She could confess now and still couldn't be tried again.

Our Country was founded on Democracy and a strong belief in individual rights. We have a very different history than the UK and Australia. I won't say it could never happen,but I don't think it will,nor would I want it to.

 

[MissJames]

Hi y'all, new here. I've been following along but had nothing new to add until now.

Here in my county, we DID have a murderer tried twice for the same crime. His first death sentence was overturned by another court. Believing that he was protected by 'Double Jeopardy' laws he wrote a letter to our Commonwealth Attorney Paul Ebert detailing the crimes. Mr. Ebert then found a way to bring a new charge and convict him to death again. He was executed last year.

http://http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86320

Point is, I'm assuming it wouldn't be double jeopardy if some kind of new evidence came to the surface so that a new charge could be brought. It may be wishful thinking, but this case came to mind after I heard the verdict.

More on this case: (I hope I did these links right)

http://http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2009/jul/12/powells_letter_to_commonwealths_attorney-ar-439028/

http://http://www2.insidenova.com/search/?source=all&query=paul+warner+powell

You should probably bring this to the Questions for our Verified Lawyers thread,but my understanding is, after a conviction (guilty),if a case is overturned,it's as if the first case is erased .If their is an acquital ( not guilty) then there is nothing to overturn.You can't try the person again for the same crime after an acqutal.