Replies

But the Constitution has nothing to do with the way these three morons voted. The very idea is laughable.

Then explain:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Obviously the phrase "to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" means to be tried twice.
Obviously the phrase "be subject for the same offence" modifies that by restricting the multiple-trials to the same matter.

Given those two phrases, I think the whole concept of 'mistrial' (in capital cases. at least) is contrary to the Constitution.
Give your reasoning on why I am wrong.

Given those two phrases, I think the whole concept of 'mistrial' (in capital cases. at least) is contrary to the Constitution. Give your reasoning on why I am wrong.

The Constitution assumed a legal system modeled after English Common Law; it would have to be much, much, longer if it spelled out in detail all the details thereof, rather than assuming them. If a legal system requires a unanimous "guity" vote to convict and requires more than one "not guilty" for an outright acquittal, there will be an unavoidable possibility of some outcome other than conviction or acquittal. I don't know much about 18th Century Common Law practices, but I believe judges were more insistent than today that jurors deliberate until they reach a unanimous verdict. That having been said, for the Double Jeopardy provisions to really mean anything, the state's ability to declare a mistrial which would permit a retrial must be severely limited. Indeed, I would suggest that--since issues of "reasonableness" aften reset on factual matters, and since defendants have the right to have factual matters determined by jury, a defendant should have the right to have the jury at the retrial be informed of the circumstances surrounding the mistrial, and instructed that they may only convict the defendant on charges where it would appear the previous jury would not have acquitted him. In many cases, the defense would not benefit from such instruction (a jury may not look kindly on a defendant who seems to be fishing for a technicality), but in cases where such presentation and instruction would tip the jury in its favor, it should be allowed to raise it.