[null and void]

I gotta side with the wise latina on this one.

Never thought I’d ever say that sentence.

*sigh*

[Our man in washington]

I agree with you. Roberts’ logic is strained on this one.

[xzins]

It appears that a technicality is in effect here, if I’m reading this correctly.

There were a numbr of charges. One of them was murder. There were a number of lesser charges. However, it’s all one trial.

Since the jury couldn’t answer all of the questions, the jury appears to have been dismissed before it officially announced any of its decisions.

The judge dismissed the jury. I assume that means he thought the process was broke, so he sent the jury home.

If I’m reading this correctly, NO acquital was every announced for any charge including the murder charge.

Am I reading this correctly up to this point?

[JLS]

Sorry, but the jury did not reach a decision. I think the judge should have taken the verdict on the two counts, but that probably requires an actual verdict form and the judge polling the jury not just a statement by the foreman.

I wonder if the guy appealed again asking appeals courts to order the judge to reconvene the jury and take those verdicts, if he would get such an order? I wonder if the judge had the power to do that in that state?

[SeaHawkFan]

From the Summary: "As permitted under Arkansas law, the jury’s options in this case were limited to two: either convict on one of the offenses, or acquit on all offenses."

Technically, this didn't happen and is the basis of the majority's opinion. The basis for the majority's decision is really weak. The Arkansas law in this regard is clearly unconstitutional.

You are correct about the wise latina getting this one right.

[piytar]

Me too. The plain language is “tried,” not “acquitted.” He was tried.

Wow, my head just exploded...

[piytar]

Sorry, I meant “jeopardy,” which means “tried.”

[rawhide]

IIRC, I seem remember when OJ was on trial and there was talk of a hung jury, if the jury could not come to an unanimous decision, because of a hold-out on the jury, either way it went. If that had happened, the talk was the government was prepared to bring murder charges again, with a new top-notch prosecutor, instead of the terrible one they had in the first trial. Why is this case any different?

[OneWingedShark]

*blink*

I guess that’s the it, the fifth doesn’t protect against being put in jeprody of life and limb multiple times OR ensure that eminent domain is a) for public use, and b) paid a fair value.

Question: are such decisions criminal felonies under 18 USC 242 & 241? {Remember, the Supremem Court is *NOT* allowed to modify/alter/amend the Constitution, which is in effect what this & Kelo are.}