Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A thread for New (TM) [SCOTUS] decisions and arguments.

2

Posts

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Yeah that's the other thing, it's not like there's some Big Book of Crimes and everyone is using the same definitions, even if the crimes are nominally similar. You can't easily say "Crime X" defined in USC section whatever is equal to "Crime X" defined in State Regulation part whocares.

    Which would be another way to nullify laws. Oh yeah Crime X is illegal at the state level, but to convict it requires proof of malice aforethought and signed witness statements from a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker.
    So yeah the jury let this guy go on that, sorry feds you don't get a chance with a normal bar to clear.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Also, I feel like "Dual Sovereignty allows for endless trials" is a bit of a straw man argument. You have to be breaking a law defined by each entity separately. Most cities or counties aren't going to have their own Bank Fraud laws, therefore, you can't be charged by the city. You can be tried by the State, once, and by the Federal Gov, once.

    "The shore does not dream of you." - Blind poet Gallan.
    Moridin889Spoit
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    One area of the state federal stuff that probably is most worring to manafort and trump is state/federal tax violations. But in that case it is not a matter of double jeopardy as lying on your state taxes is a distinct crime from lying on your federal forms. Closely related but you are giving your word on both forms that the above information is correct. I can see some cases where this kind of double jeopardy may be an issue though.

    I think banking fraud is another big concern. You commit fraud in NY, the State of NY wants your ass but pretty much all bank fraud has an interstate component now so federal statues also apply...

    Why allow two trials though? Make the split happen at sentencing. You can be tried once, and federal/state/tribal prosecutors can share information or decide amongst themselves where you should be charged. Then when sentencing happens you can have multiple sentences for federal or state or whatever. Ideally the sentencing would also be something that is decided on a per law basis before hand.

    If there is enough of a deference in the criteria for being guilty at a state vs federal level that one trial wouldn't necessarily cover both, then it seems like the crimes are different enough to be tried separately as distinct crimes.

    What if the state, feds, or tribe don't agree on trial tactics, or have slightly different elements to prove (perhaps the state crime requires an intentional mental state while the federal crime requires a knowing one), or don't have equal resources?

    Where do you pick the jury from? In state crimes, it's from the county you're prosecuted in. For federal the pool could be much wider. For tribal it's most likely going to be fellow tribal members.

    "Just have one trial" isn't that easy and definitely stomps all over the idea of states and tribes as separate sovereign entities.

    I mean, that is the state/fed/tribes problem to work out before hand. I don't see why I would trample on the individuals right to not have endless trials just because the agencies can't decide the best course of prosecution. Presumably you would need some laws dictating who gets final say if they can't agree, but I don't think the right answer is to simply let them all have a crack at it separately.

    I also don't see how the current setup is upholding the separate entities any better. Federal laws can and do trump states/tribal laws (when explicitly stated). If the state wants to give a lighter sentence the feds can come in and prosecute them again and give a heavier one. If the state wants to give a heavier sentence, federal law could presumably be created that prohibits this (this one seems less clear to me I guess but cases like United States v. Cardenas-Juarez, 9th Cir. 2006, seem to indicate that the federal laws can establish maximum sentences for crimes).

    Let's please make sure we are talking about criminal laws here in this discussion. When you say federal laws can and do trump state or tribal laws, I believe you're thinking of the doctrine of federal preemption, which is not a doctrine that says a federal criminal statute preempts a state criminal statute, but rather usually refers to federal law as the floor of regulation that states cannot go below.

    Your "well they'll work it out beforehand" really belies a lack of understanding of how a trial works and how much resources go into it - not a dig at you, I just think most people don't understand this. Nor would allowing states and tribes and feds to prosecute as separate sovereigns result in "endless trials." In fact, I'm still looking for evidence of said "endless trial" scenario having happened at any point recently - can anyone find an example?

    I'm not sure I understand what meets the criteria of endless trials. If you're looking for examples of defendants being acquitted and then immediately retried without any additional evidence in another jurisdiction:

    US v. SSG David Tillery:
    In 2002, David Tillery was acquitted by a North Carolina state court of a two year-old murder.8 Six months later, the Cumberland County, North Carolina Sheriff’s Office convinced Staff Sergeant Tillery’s Army commander at Fort Benning, Georgia9 to pursue the murder charge again.10 With the North Carolina record of trial in hand (literally)11 and without any additional evidence,12 the Army obtained the court-martial conviction.13 The difference? North Carolina has a unanimous jury verdict requirement; the military only has a two-thirds verdict requirement.14

    I'm sure I could dig up quite a few more if I dig through some of Radley Balko's articles on the Washington Post.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Also, I feel like "Dual Sovereignty allows for endless trials" is a bit of a straw man argument. You have to be breaking a law defined by each entity separately. Most cities or counties aren't going to have their own Bank Fraud laws, therefore, you can't be charged by the city. You can be tried by the State, once, and by the Federal Gov, once.

    SiG's point about tribal sovereignty is worth more consideration on my part but I still think this is too flippant a view with regard to double jeopardy. Yeah, they're separate governmental agencies with their separate spheres of power, but you don't really live your life like that and I think it ignores a big reason we only let the government try you once.

  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    In most cases, the federal government can only prosecute for crimes that involve interstate commerce so wouldn't 'bank fraud affecting interstate commerce' be different from 'bank fraud affecting NY state commerce' even if they both stemmed from the same action?

  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    lazegamer wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    One area of the state federal stuff that probably is most worring to manafort and trump is state/federal tax violations. But in that case it is not a matter of double jeopardy as lying on your state taxes is a distinct crime from lying on your federal forms. Closely related but you are giving your word on both forms that the above information is correct. I can see some cases where this kind of double jeopardy may be an issue though.

    I think banking fraud is another big concern. You commit fraud in NY, the State of NY wants your ass but pretty much all bank fraud has an interstate component now so federal statues also apply...

    Why allow two trials though? Make the split happen at sentencing. You can be tried once, and federal/state/tribal prosecutors can share information or decide amongst themselves where you should be charged. Then when sentencing happens you can have multiple sentences for federal or state or whatever. Ideally the sentencing would also be something that is decided on a per law basis before hand.

    If there is enough of a deference in the criteria for being guilty at a state vs federal level that one trial wouldn't necessarily cover both, then it seems like the crimes are different enough to be tried separately as distinct crimes.

    What if the state, feds, or tribe don't agree on trial tactics, or have slightly different elements to prove (perhaps the state crime requires an intentional mental state while the federal crime requires a knowing one), or don't have equal resources?

    Where do you pick the jury from? In state crimes, it's from the county you're prosecuted in. For federal the pool could be much wider. For tribal it's most likely going to be fellow tribal members.

    "Just have one trial" isn't that easy and definitely stomps all over the idea of states and tribes as separate sovereign entities.

    I mean, that is the state/fed/tribes problem to work out before hand. I don't see why I would trample on the individuals right to not have endless trials just because the agencies can't decide the best course of prosecution. Presumably you would need some laws dictating who gets final say if they can't agree, but I don't think the right answer is to simply let them all have a crack at it separately.

    I also don't see how the current setup is upholding the separate entities any better. Federal laws can and do trump states/tribal laws (when explicitly stated). If the state wants to give a lighter sentence the feds can come in and prosecute them again and give a heavier one. If the state wants to give a heavier sentence, federal law could presumably be created that prohibits this (this one seems less clear to me I guess but cases like United States v. Cardenas-Juarez, 9th Cir. 2006, seem to indicate that the federal laws can establish maximum sentences for crimes).

    Let's please make sure we are talking about criminal laws here in this discussion. When you say federal laws can and do trump state or tribal laws, I believe you're thinking of the doctrine of federal preemption, which is not a doctrine that says a federal criminal statute preempts a state criminal statute, but rather usually refers to federal law as the floor of regulation that states cannot go below.

    Your "well they'll work it out beforehand" really belies a lack of understanding of how a trial works and how much resources go into it - not a dig at you, I just think most people don't understand this. Nor would allowing states and tribes and feds to prosecute as separate sovereigns result in "endless trials." In fact, I'm still looking for evidence of said "endless trial" scenario having happened at any point recently - can anyone find an example?

    I'm not sure I understand what meets the criteria of endless trials. If you're looking for examples of defendants being acquitted and then immediately retried without any additional evidence in another jurisdiction:

    US v. SSG David Tillery:
    In 2002, David Tillery was acquitted by a North Carolina state court of a two year-old murder.8 Six months later, the Cumberland County, North Carolina Sheriff’s Office convinced Staff Sergeant Tillery’s Army commander at Fort Benning, Georgia9 to pursue the murder charge again.10 With the North Carolina record of trial in hand (literally)11 and without any additional evidence,12 the Army obtained the court-martial conviction.13 The difference? North Carolina has a unanimous jury verdict requirement; the military only has a two-thirds verdict requirement.14

    I'm sure I could dig up quite a few more if I dig through some of Radley Balko's articles on the Washington Post.

    That's still only 4 trials, and only in a weird, perfect storm confluence of state and federal law, while on tribal land, while being a member of the military? It is true that it doesn't not follow the word of "One trial only", but I feel like it still avoids any chance of "endless trials".

    "The shore does not dream of you." - Blind poet Gallan.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Only 4 trials

    CauldJebus314
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Master of the House of Lust Registered User regular
    Have we mentioned that the Court might crack down on excessive fines at the state level?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-excessive-fines-land-rover.html
    Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general, faced unusually intense skepticism from the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he argued that the Constitution had nothing to say about civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

    Obviously reading tea leaves from argument is dicey at best but this could be what will be rare good news from the Court

    I'm pretty sure Thomas has said in the past that Civil Forfeiture is some kinds of nonsense.

    Even Gorsuch was treating Indiana's argument like a joke. There may be separate opinions concurring/dissenting in part, but it seems pretty clear Indiana isn't winning.

    Which is great, because CAF is fucking stupid.

    Styrofoam Sammichmonikerspool32shrykeMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxabotkinCommander Zoom
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Have we mentioned that the Court might crack down on excessive fines at the state level?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-excessive-fines-land-rover.html
    Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general, faced unusually intense skepticism from the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he argued that the Constitution had nothing to say about civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

    Obviously reading tea leaves from argument is dicey at best but this could be what will be rare good news from the Court

    I'm pretty sure Thomas has said in the past that Civil Forfeiture is some kinds of nonsense.

    Even Gorsuch was treating Indiana's argument like a joke. There may be separate opinions concurring/dissenting in part, but it seems pretty clear Indiana isn't winning.

    Which is great, because CAF is fucking stupid.

    He made some good points and when the guy bringing that case tried an even more stupid tract gorsuch hammered him and sotomyor finished off the burnt remains of a bad legal concept. It only looked like a couple on the court were looking even somewhat favorably towards them.

    spool32Martini_PhilosopherFencingsaxabotkinCommander Zoom
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Only 4 trials

    Actually, reading closer, I was wrong. Federal law and Court martials are considered to be part of the same sovereignty. So you can be tried by the state, the feds, and a tribe. We've already agreed that the tribes aren't really at issue here, as they are really their own sovereignty. So now you have two trials. Which is me moving numbers around, but is still less than infinite trials.

    "The shore does not dream of you." - Blind poet Gallan.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Only 4 trials

    Actually, reading closer, I was wrong. Federal law and Court martials are considered to be part of the same sovereignty. So you can be tried by the state, the feds, and a tribe. We've already agreed that the tribes aren't really at issue here, as they are really their own sovereignty. So now you have two trials. Which is me moving numbers around, but is still less than infinite trials.

    Two is still a lot more than one! It might be within the letter of the 5th Amendment but I struggle to see it in the spirit of it.

    Jebus314
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    One area of the state federal stuff that probably is most worring to manafort and trump is state/federal tax violations. But in that case it is not a matter of double jeopardy as lying on your state taxes is a distinct crime from lying on your federal forms. Closely related but you are giving your word on both forms that the above information is correct. I can see some cases where this kind of double jeopardy may be an issue though.

    I think banking fraud is another big concern. You commit fraud in NY, the State of NY wants your ass but pretty much all bank fraud has an interstate component now so federal statues also apply...

    Why allow two trials though? Make the split happen at sentencing. You can be tried once, and federal/state/tribal prosecutors can share information or decide amongst themselves where you should be charged. Then when sentencing happens you can have multiple sentences for federal or state or whatever. Ideally the sentencing would also be something that is decided on a per law basis before hand.

    If there is enough of a deference in the criteria for being guilty at a state vs federal level that one trial wouldn't necessarily cover both, then it seems like the crimes are different enough to be tried separately as distinct crimes.

    What if the state, feds, or tribe don't agree on trial tactics, or have slightly different elements to prove (perhaps the state crime requires an intentional mental state while the federal crime requires a knowing one), or don't have equal resources?

    Where do you pick the jury from? In state crimes, it's from the county you're prosecuted in. For federal the pool could be much wider. For tribal it's most likely going to be fellow tribal members.

    "Just have one trial" isn't that easy and definitely stomps all over the idea of states and tribes as separate sovereign entities.

    I mean, that is the state/fed/tribes problem to work out before hand. I don't see why I would trample on the individuals right to not have endless trials just because the agencies can't decide the best course of prosecution. Presumably you would need some laws dictating who gets final say if they can't agree, but I don't think the right answer is to simply let them all have a crack at it separately.

    I also don't see how the current setup is upholding the separate entities any better. Federal laws can and do trump states/tribal laws (when explicitly stated). If the state wants to give a lighter sentence the feds can come in and prosecute them again and give a heavier one. If the state wants to give a heavier sentence, federal law could presumably be created that prohibits this (this one seems less clear to me I guess but cases like United States v. Cardenas-Juarez, 9th Cir. 2006, seem to indicate that the federal laws can establish maximum sentences for crimes).

    Let's please make sure we are talking about criminal laws here in this discussion. When you say federal laws can and do trump state or tribal laws, I believe you're thinking of the doctrine of federal preemption, which is not a doctrine that says a federal criminal statute preempts a state criminal statute, but rather usually refers to federal law as the floor of regulation that states cannot go below.

    Your "well they'll work it out beforehand" really belies a lack of understanding of how a trial works and how much resources go into it - not a dig at you, I just think most people don't understand this. Nor would allowing states and tribes and feds to prosecute as separate sovereigns result in "endless trials." In fact, I'm still looking for evidence of said "endless trial" scenario having happened at any point recently - can anyone find an example?

    I think your interpretation is to narrow. The supremacy clause simply states that federal laws supersede when there is contradictions. Federal laws can, for example, explicitly make legal something that state laws are trying to make illegal. That is not federal law setting a minimum enforcement point, but specifically preempting a state law. The equal rights protections can sometimes work this way, where states may want to outlaw selling guns to minorities (for instance), but federal law removes this ability.

    Also, I wasn't intending to imply that "work it out beforehand" would be on a case by case basis. But rather an expansion of existing jurisdiction laws to include which agency has the final say in how/when/where charges can be brought for a specific crime. This does not seem an impossible hurdle.

    As far as excessive litigation goes, I suppose it can only serve to extend by a single trial. So ignoring the undue financial burdens of a single trial, adding one more is not likely to be considered severe. However I still feel that the same reasoning for implementing double jeopardy (rather than say triple jeopardy) should apply here.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-bar-dues-20181203-story.html?outputType=amp
    But the more conservative high court may be on verge of upsetting this longstanding system on the grounds that forcing lawyers to subsidize a private organization violates the 1st Amendment.

    Look at me

    Im the lawyer now

  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Only 4 trials

    Actually, reading closer, I was wrong. Federal law and Court martials are considered to be part of the same sovereignty. So you can be tried by the state, the feds, and a tribe. We've already agreed that the tribes aren't really at issue here, as they are really their own sovereignty. So now you have two trials. Which is me moving numbers around, but is still less than infinite trials.

    Two is still a lot more than one! It might be within the letter of the 5th Amendment but I struggle to see it in the spirit of it.

    It's not perfect. And I can see areas where it might be abused. But it's also been used for good in a number of situations, and I believe it is a net benefit to our country.

    "The shore does not dream of you." - Blind poet Gallan.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Only 4 trials

    Actually, reading closer, I was wrong. Federal law and Court martials are considered to be part of the same sovereignty. So you can be tried by the state, the feds, and a tribe. We've already agreed that the tribes aren't really at issue here, as they are really their own sovereignty. So now you have two trials. Which is me moving numbers around, but is still less than infinite trials.

    Two is still a lot more than one! It might be within the letter of the 5th Amendment but I struggle to see it in the spirit of it.

    It's not perfect. And I can see areas where it might be abused. But it's also been used for good in a number of situations, and I believe it is a net benefit to our country.

    I'm not sure net benefit is an appropriate metric for civil rights!

  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Only 4 trials

    Actually, reading closer, I was wrong. Federal law and Court martials are considered to be part of the same sovereignty. So you can be tried by the state, the feds, and a tribe. We've already agreed that the tribes aren't really at issue here, as they are really their own sovereignty. So now you have two trials. Which is me moving numbers around, but is still less than infinite trials.

    Two is still a lot more than one! It might be within the letter of the 5th Amendment but I struggle to see it in the spirit of it.

    It's not perfect. And I can see areas where it might be abused. But it's also been used for good in a number of situations, and I believe it is a net benefit to our country.

    I'm not sure net benefit is an appropriate metric for civil rights!

    It was often used to prosecute violators of civil rights when the state in question was unable/unwilling to convict.

    "The shore does not dream of you." - Blind poet Gallan.
    Spoit
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Only 4 trials

    Actually, reading closer, I was wrong. Federal law and Court martials are considered to be part of the same sovereignty. So you can be tried by the state, the feds, and a tribe. We've already agreed that the tribes aren't really at issue here, as they are really their own sovereignty. So now you have two trials. Which is me moving numbers around, but is still less than infinite trials.

    Two is still a lot more than one! It might be within the letter of the 5th Amendment but I struggle to see it in the spirit of it.

    It's not perfect. And I can see areas where it might be abused. But it's also been used for good in a number of situations, and I believe it is a net benefit to our country.

    I'm not sure net benefit is an appropriate metric for civil rights!

    It was often used to prosecute violators of civil rights when the state in question was unable/unwilling to convict.

    Unwilling isn't an issue here, but I think there a legislative avenue giving the Federal government first determination on trying civil rights abuses would be a better approach.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-bar-dues-20181203-story.html?outputType=amp
    But the more conservative high court may be on verge of upsetting this longstanding system on the grounds that forcing lawyers to subsidize a private organization violates the 1st Amendment.

    Look at me

    Im the lawyer now

    Oh god. If SCOTUS outlaws trade organizations its going to be fucking insane. I mean, they're unions. But like... holy god. You would have to nationalize every semi-private licensing organization! It would be madness.

    wbBv3fj.png
    SleepPolaritieshrykeMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxMoridin889abotkinbrynhrtmn
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Only 4 trials

    Actually, reading closer, I was wrong. Federal law and Court martials are considered to be part of the same sovereignty. So you can be tried by the state, the feds, and a tribe. We've already agreed that the tribes aren't really at issue here, as they are really their own sovereignty. So now you have two trials. Which is me moving numbers around, but is still less than infinite trials.

    Two is still a lot more than one! It might be within the letter of the 5th Amendment but I struggle to see it in the spirit of it.

    It's not perfect. And I can see areas where it might be abused. But it's also been used for good in a number of situations, and I believe it is a net benefit to our country.

    I'm not sure net benefit is an appropriate metric for civil rights!

    I'm not sure legalizing nullification is either.

    So It GoesabotkinSpoit
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Bar dues kinda suck, but I'll have to dig into that case more deeply

    BigJoeM
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-bar-dues-20181203-story.html?outputType=amp
    But the more conservative high court may be on verge of upsetting this longstanding system on the grounds that forcing lawyers to subsidize a private organization violates the 1st Amendment.

    Look at me

    Im the lawyer now

    Oh god. If SCOTUS outlaws trade organizations its going to be fucking insane. I mean, they're unions. But like... holy god. You would have to nationalize every semi-private licensing organization! It would be madness.

    The conservatives have no interest in anything but a radical hard-right restructuring of society.

    Still waiting for when Chevron goes down. God knows wtf happens then.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    I mean, maybe those organizations hold on with voluntary payment. But maybe they dont and the state loses the ability to enforce licensing except by nationalizing the licensing organizations

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    This seems the logical extension of Janus

    silence1186moniker
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    This seems the logical extension of Janus

    I wonder if someone will go after the AMA as well. Doctors don't need a union, right?

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    Moridin889Spoit
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    There's a case recently granted cert by SCOTUS which touches on the double jeopardy thing tangentially.

    I've been listening to the In the Dark podcast. Season 2 covers the case of a man named Curtis Flowers, who has been tried 6 times for the same crime. He's fighting now for... what will probably be a 7th trial.

    Flowers is accused of shooting and killing several people in a furniture store he used to work at. He's been tried 6 times. Of the 6, I believe there were two hung juries; three trials resulted in guilty verdicts which were subsequently overturned in the court of Appeals due to prosecutorial misconduct. The last trial, also a guilty verdict, will be argued before SCOTUS, not on the question of whether somebody should be tried 6 times for the same crime, but on the question of whether or not the prosecutor violated jurors' civil rights by racially profiling jurors to ensure an all white or majority white jury (Flowers is black, the prosecutor is white, the case is in Mississippi). If Flowers wins his case before SCOTUS it seems likely he will simply be tried a 7th time, because the same prosecutor has been in charge of all of these trials and over the course of 20 years will not let it go, even though there is some evidence that Flowers is innocent of the crime.

    Can somebody explain to me why, in the instance of a federal conviction and questionable Presidential pardon, we should not want the state to prosecute a second time because "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" but we're fine with putting a man in a decades-long cycle of trials and lengthy appeals and more trials, perpetuated by the same prosecutor, who can simply keep retrying (with varying degrees of misconduct) as long as he feels like?

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    (It's because he's not rich and he's not white.)

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    AstaerethIncenjucarCommander ZoomSpoitN1tSt4lker
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Brody wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Only 4 trials

    Actually, reading closer, I was wrong. Federal law and Court martials are considered to be part of the same sovereignty. So you can be tried by the state, the feds, and a tribe. We've already agreed that the tribes aren't really at issue here, as they are really their own sovereignty. So now you have two trials. Which is me moving numbers around, but is still less than infinite trials.

    Two is still a lot more than one! It might be within the letter of the 5th Amendment but I struggle to see it in the spirit of it.

    It's not perfect. And I can see areas where it might be abused. But it's also been used for good in a number of situations, and I believe it is a net benefit to our country.

    I'm not sure net benefit is an appropriate metric for civil rights!

    If you take the laws and squish them together in just the right ways, you're always going to wind up with fringe cases that are violating the spirit of the law. It doesn't make any of the constituent laws necessarily bad, it's just what happens when you apply 100,000 laws to 300,000,000 people.

    That's why it's relevant how many times this sort of thing even pops up. If you have one case per year where things get hinky, that's different than 1,000 cases per year.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    So It Goesabotkin
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    There's a case recently granted cert by SCOTUS which touches on the double jeopardy thing tangentially.

    I've been listening to the In the Dark podcast. Season 2 covers the case of a man named Curtis Flowers, who has been tried 6 times for the same crime. He's fighting now for... what will probably be a 7th trial.

    Flowers is accused of shooting and killing several people in a furniture store he used to work at. He's been tried 6 times. Of the 6, I believe there were two hung juries; three trials resulted in guilty verdicts which were subsequently overturned in the court of Appeals due to prosecutorial misconduct. The last trial, also a guilty verdict, will be argued before SCOTUS, not on the question of whether somebody should be tried 6 times for the same crime, but on the question of whether or not the prosecutor violated jurors' civil rights by racially profiling jurors to ensure an all white or majority white jury (Flowers is black, the prosecutor is white, the case is in Mississippi). If Flowers wins his case before SCOTUS it seems likely he will simply be tried a 7th time, because the same prosecutor has been in charge of all of these trials and over the course of 20 years will not let it go, even though there is some evidence that Flowers is innocent of the crime.

    Can somebody explain to me why, in the instance of a federal conviction and questionable Presidential pardon, we should not want the state to prosecute a second time because "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" but we're fine with putting a man in a decades-long cycle of trials and lengthy appeals and more trials, perpetuated by the same prosecutor, who can simply keep retrying (with varying degrees of misconduct) as long as he feels like?

    I don't think anyone here would agree with the way that case seems to be going, as presented. This is clearly another case of someone using a system intended for good being used for bad. What makes it worse is prosecutors are often elected, which potentially means he has been tried 6 times over X years, because state has chosen a person with this vendetta.

    "The shore does not dream of you." - Blind poet Gallan.
    Martini_Philosopher
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    There's a case recently granted cert by SCOTUS which touches on the double jeopardy thing tangentially.

    I've been listening to the In the Dark podcast. Season 2 covers the case of a man named Curtis Flowers, who has been tried 6 times for the same crime. He's fighting now for... what will probably be a 7th trial.

    Flowers is accused of shooting and killing several people in a furniture store he used to work at. He's been tried 6 times. Of the 6, I believe there were two hung juries; three trials resulted in guilty verdicts which were subsequently overturned in the court of Appeals due to prosecutorial misconduct. The last trial, also a guilty verdict, will be argued before SCOTUS, not on the question of whether somebody should be tried 6 times for the same crime, but on the question of whether or not the prosecutor violated jurors' civil rights by racially profiling jurors to ensure an all white or majority white jury (Flowers is black, the prosecutor is white, the case is in Mississippi). If Flowers wins his case before SCOTUS it seems likely he will simply be tried a 7th time, because the same prosecutor has been in charge of all of these trials and over the course of 20 years will not let it go, even though there is some evidence that Flowers is innocent of the crime.

    Can somebody explain to me why, in the instance of a federal conviction and questionable Presidential pardon, we should not want the state to prosecute a second time because "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" but we're fine with putting a man in a decades-long cycle of trials and lengthy appeals and more trials, perpetuated by the same prosecutor, who can simply keep retrying (with varying degrees of misconduct) as long as he feels like?

    I mean, there isn't really a good solution to a hung jury. They didn't render a verdict either way. Also, calling an Appeals case or being remanded to a lower Court to consider new evidence a second or third trial seems to be kind of intentionally misleading when it comes to questions of double jeopardy. Though it does certainly point to the inadequacy of Public Defender's budgets.

    spool32BrodyMartini_PhilosopherSo It GoesMoridin889BigJoeMVishNubabotkinSpoitN1tSt4lker
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Yeah that seems more like a sixth amendment "speedy trial" issue.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    Martini_PhilosopherVishNub
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Yeah that seems more like a sixth amendment "speedy trial" issue.

    Also judicial procedure. There's a reason that there are several books titled Model Jury Instruction.

    Martini_Philosopher
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Hey, if a trial gets overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct... why is that prosecutor then handling the next every other trial of the guy?!

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    SleepPolaritieHappylilElfMartini_PhilosopherAstaerethFencingsaxMoridin889YamiB.abotkinCommander ZoomSpoitbrynhrtmnkimeStabbity StyleN1tSt4lker
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Hey, if a trial gets overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct... why is that prosecutor then handling the next every other trial of the guy?!

    Because we don't take prosecutorial misconduct seriously at all.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    shrykeMorganVFencingsaxMoridin889monikerSleepBigJoeMVishNubYamiB.abotkinCommander ZoomKraintHefflingKamarStabbity StyleN1tSt4lker
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular


    The Associated Press is a news agency.

    Fuck. Fuck fuck fuckety fuck fuck.

    FUCK!

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    PantsBSleepTetraRayVishNubOrcaMartini_Philosopherdispatch.oCommunistCowCommander ZoomBrodyJebus314shrykeTetraNitroCubaneIncenjucarHefflingMillBlackDragon480Stabbity Style
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Shes been moving around and they say theres no sign of further malignancy, so fingers crossed.

    XaquinPhoenix-DTomantaMartini_PhilosopherCommander Zoomnever dieFencingsaxBlackDragon480Stabbity Style
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Shes been moving around and they say theres no sign of further malignancy, so fingers crossed.

    Still, fuck cancer.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    destroyah87OrcaXaquinPhoenix-DTomantaMartini_PhilosopherFoolOnTheHillbrynhrtmndispatch.oAimMoridin889Commander Zoomnever dieBrodyJebus314shrykeTetraNitroCubanespool32DoctorArchIncenjucarHappylilElfEmperorSethFencingsaxHefflingkimeMillStabbity Style
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    She can have one of mine.

    Hell, she can have both of mine. There's some respirator thing I could barely survive off of, right?

    moniker on
    MorganVAimBrody
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    They found it by accident when she cracked her ribs.

    So that's actually pretty lucky.

    SleepStyrofoam SammichmonikerPhoenix-DGnizmoTomantaMartini_PhilosopherArbitraryDescriptorbrynhrtmnViskodMoridin889CommunistCowCommander Zoomnever dieForarBrodyspool32IncenjucarHappylilElfFencingsaxHefflingMillBlackDragon480Stabbity Style
  • QanamilQanamil Registered User regular


    The Associated Press is a news agency.

    Fuck. Fuck fuck fuckety fuck fuck.

    FUCK!

    Follow up tweet:
    The Supreme Court says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery to remove two malignant growths from her left lung. The court says doctors found "no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body." The court says no additional treatment is planned currently.

    Steam/PSN ID: FauxRomano | no podcast projects, but interested!
    monikerMetzger MeisterMartini_PhilosopherFoolOnTheHillArbitraryDescriptorPolaritiedispatch.oMoridin889Commander Zoomnever dieshrykeIncenjucarFencingsaxHefflingMillBlackDragon480KamarStabbity Style
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    RGB!! What a tough lady, wow.

    Commander Zoom
2
Sign In or Register to comment.