Gun lawsuit dismissed in Temple

[EEllis]

I would say that while anything can be abused there is also a real public benefit to being able to convict people who are guilty of crimes. In this case I think there was major benefit for not letting CJ claim victory when there was a hung jury. Well he claimed it but that was more than a bit trashed when he was later convicted. Heck even if you are on the other side so to speak the conviction allows CJ to appeal and thus the possibility to create precedent and no matter how it turns out if the appeal is heard there will be more guidance on these types of situations and the legal issues involved. It's definitely not open and shut on either side IMHO. While SCOTUS has been pretty direct Scalia's dissents show the he clearly agrees with those who believe a hung jury should have jeopardy attached. For myself I haven't seen evidence that abusive retrials based on hung juries are a big enough problem to change our system. From what research I have done the easy explanation for why double jeopardy doesn't attach is because legally speaking a mistrial is a legal non event. Unless a court comes to a decision it doesn't count so ..........

It's not a "non-event" for the person that is being tried again. How about the person that has to go through and fund multiple trials and IS innocent the whole time?

It wouldn't even be a "non-event" if the person was reimbursed for their costs if found not guilty. There is still time and emotional toll that is inflicted.

Only guys that get paid whether they win or lose and don't have to pay the costs themselves seem to be the ones that are ok with this junk of multiple trials when they don't do a good enough job the first time.

Legal non event. You don't have half a trial. It either is a trial or not. If it's a mistrial then it wasn't a trial so legal non event. There has to be a completed trial for jeopardy to attach This is based off of common law and goes back before we had a country. Emotional pleas don't change that and don't make me feel bad for recognizing that fact. I could say how badly trials affect people who are found not guilty would that mean we stop having trials? Again while people hammer the possibility of abuse, and I'm sure it happens, I haven't seen or heard anyone giving any evidence that it's a statistically significant issue worth changing our current system.

[JALLEN]

Being in the insurance business, I can tell you with quite a bit of certainty, having a staff of attorneys on the payroll is very formidable and hard to compete with for us mere citizens. It doesn't guarantee a win but it sure makes it hard to compete.

So, just how strong does a public defender stack up. Check this out. http://work.chron.com/much-money-public ... 11605.html I don't want one of these guys representing me against a staff full of attorneys when my freedom and liberty is on the line.

The DA has all sorts of advantages. Most obviously, they can pick and chose which cases to bring, and which to plead out or try, and on what terms. Most DA offices win well more than 90% of the time. When a case is lost, they consider the defendant "got away with it" rather than face the fact that they had a poor case, unreliable or lying witnesses, were stupid in evaluating their hand, seldom concluding that they, or one of their own, made a mistake.

One limitation they face is manpower. While it looks unlimited, it is not. Crime is a sufficiently large activity that there is never a dull moment, and most prosecutors claim to be overworked. Some doubtlessly are.

I was never a prosecutor, so can't speak to the inside game. I know of quite a few crimes which occurred, loads of compelling very persuasive evidence easily obtained, as to which no indictments were ever sought, the scofflaws free as birds to this day. These are all "white collar" crimes, fraud, embezzlement, etc. The DA doesn't usually have, and won't spare, the manpower to pursue those cases. Being "non-violent" they have much lower priority. The resources of the office cannot be stretched that far, they claim.

Rounding up probative admissible evidence is painstaking, skilled work, time consuming, with many pitfalls for sloppy, less experienced investigators. You have to know what you are doing. Many prosecutors, and investigators, don't.

I would think that after a mistrial where the jury could not agree on a verdict, there would be some soul searching, to analyze very carefully the strengths and weaknesses of the available evidence to decide if another go is warranted. If the jury was 1-11 for guilt, 2-10, etc, maybe things aren't as strong as they figured, the evidence did not make the impression on the jurors they counted on, for some reason.

All the defense has to do is inject reasonable doubt in the juror's mind.

[mojo84]

I would say that while anything can be abused there is also a real public benefit to being able to convict people who are guilty of crimes. In this case I think there was major benefit for not letting CJ claim victory when there was a hung jury. Well he claimed it but that was more than a bit trashed when he was later convicted. Heck even if you are on the other side so to speak the conviction allows CJ to appeal and thus the possibility to create precedent and no matter how it turns out if the appeal is heard there will be more guidance on these types of situations and the legal issues involved. It's definitely not open and shut on either side IMHO. While SCOTUS has been pretty direct Scalia's dissents show the he clearly agrees with those who believe a hung jury should have jeopardy attached. For myself I haven't seen evidence that abusive retrials based on hung juries are a big enough problem to change our system. From what research I have done the easy explanation for why double jeopardy doesn't attach is because legally speaking a mistrial is a legal non event. Unless a court comes to a decision it doesn't count so ..........

It's not a "non-event" for the person that is being tried again. How about the person that has to go through and fund multiple trials and IS innocent the whole time?

It wouldn't even be a "non-event" if the person was reimbursed for their costs if found not guilty. There is still time and emotional toll that is inflicted.

Only guys that get paid whether they win or lose and don't have to pay the costs themselves seem to be the ones that are ok with this junk of multiple trials when they don't do a good enough job the first time.

Legal non event. You don't have half a trial. It either is a trial or not. If it's a mistrial then it wasn't a trial so legal non event. There has to be a completed trial for jeopardy to attach This is based off of common law and goes back before we had a country. Emotional pleas don't change that and don't make me feel bad for recognizing that fact. I could say how badly trials affect people who are found not guilty would that mean we stop having trials? Again while people hammer the possibility of abuse, and I'm sure it happens, I haven't seen or heard anyone giving any evidence that it's a statistically significant issue worth changing our current system.

I have several things running through my head regarding your passive aggressive sarcastic comments, especially the bolded portion, but I'll refrain in deference to the posted forum rules.

[mojo84]

Being in the insurance business, I can tell you with quite a bit of certainty, having a staff of attorneys on the payroll is very formidable and hard to compete with for us mere citizens. It doesn't guarantee a win but it sure makes it hard to compete.

So, just how strong does a public defender stack up. Check this out. http://work.chron.com/much-money-public ... 11605.html I don't want one of these guys representing me against a staff full of attorneys when my freedom and liberty is on the line.

The DA has all sorts of advantages. Most obviously, they can pick and chose which cases to bring, and which to plead out or try, and on what terms. Most DA offices win well more than 90% of the time. When a case is lost, they consider the defendant "got away with it" rather than face the fact that they had a poor case, unreliable or lying witnesses, were stupid in evaluating their hand, seldom concluding that they, or one of their own, made a mistake.

One limitation they face is manpower. While it looks unlimited, it is not. Crime is a sufficiently large activity that there is never a dull moment, and most prosecutors claim to be overworked. Some doubtlessly are.

I was never a prosecutor, so can't speak to the inside game. I know of quite a few crimes which occurred, loads of compelling very persuasive evidence easily obtained, as to which no indictments were ever sought, the scofflaws free as birds to this day. These are all "white collar" crimes, fraud, embezzlement, etc. The DA doesn't usually have, and won't spare, the manpower to pursue those cases. Being "non-violent" they have much lower priority. The resources of the office cannot be stretched that far, they claim.

Rounding up probative admissible evidence is painstaking, skilled work, time consuming, with many pitfalls for sloppy, less experienced investigators. You have to know what you are doing. Many prosecutors, and investigators, don't.

I would think that after a mistrial where the jury could not agree on a verdict, there would be some soul searching, to analyze very carefully the strengths and weaknesses of the available evidence to decide if another go is warranted. If the jury was 1-11 for guilt, 2-10, etc, maybe things aren't as strong as they figured, the evidence did not make the impression on the jurors they counted on, for some reason.

All the defense has to do is inject reasonable doubt in the juror's mind.

If all of that is true and their resources are as stretched as claimed, how can they afford to retry a case when there is a hung jury or other reason a mistrial is declared? I see way too much government waste to feel too sorry for "overworked" DA and ADA's. As a small business person, I work my tail off around the clock and am having to grow my business this year just to pay the additional taxes levied on me. The DA's and ADA's get their paychecks whether they win or lose. The one being tried loses money whether they win or lose.

Like I said before, it's always the people that make money off of the system that has trouble recognizing what parts of the system are broken. Lawyers on both sides still get paid whether they win or lose and whether they are trying the same case over or another one. No sympathy here.

[EEllis]

I would say that while anything can be abused there is also a real public benefit to being able to convict people who are guilty of crimes. In this case I think there was major benefit for not letting CJ claim victory when there was a hung jury. Well he claimed it but that was more than a bit trashed when he was later convicted. Heck even if you are on the other side so to speak the conviction allows CJ to appeal and thus the possibility to create precedent and no matter how it turns out if the appeal is heard there will be more guidance on these types of situations and the legal issues involved. It's definitely not open and shut on either side IMHO. While SCOTUS has been pretty direct Scalia's dissents show the he clearly agrees with those who believe a hung jury should have jeopardy attached. For myself I haven't seen evidence that abusive retrials based on hung juries are a big enough problem to change our system. From what research I have done the easy explanation for why double jeopardy doesn't attach is because legally speaking a mistrial is a legal non event. Unless a court comes to a decision it doesn't count so ..........

It's not a "non-event" for the person that is being tried again. How about the person that has to go through and fund multiple trials and IS innocent the whole time?

It wouldn't even be a "non-event" if the person was reimbursed for their costs if found not guilty. There is still time and emotional toll that is inflicted.

Only guys that get paid whether they win or lose and don't have to pay the costs themselves seem to be the ones that are ok with this junk of multiple trials when they don't do a good enough job the first time.

Legal non event. You don't have half a trial. It either is a trial or not. If it's a mistrial then it wasn't a trial so legal non event. There has to be a completed trial for jeopardy to attach This is based off of common law and goes back before we had a country. Emotional pleas don't change that and don't make me feel bad for recognizing that fact. I could say how badly trials affect people who are found not guilty would that mean we stop having trials? Again while people hammer the possibility of abuse, and I'm sure it happens, I haven't seen or heard anyone giving any evidence that it's a statistically significant issue worth changing our current system.

I have several things running through my head regarding your passive aggressive sarcastic comments, especially the bolded portion, but I'll refrain in deference to the posted forum rules.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

It wasn't sacastic it was the logical though extended and extream follow to your point. Retrials are unjust because of what someone who is found innocent goes through. But then by that logic why wouldn't any trial that had someone found innocent be unjust? That you find it offensive just shows that you yourself recognize the fault in the logic.

[mojo84]

The emotional toll is just one component. I made that very clear. What about the money and time the person is out? How much do you as a government employee have to kick in when you lose a case and can't prove the defendant is guilty? What does the DA or ADA lose when they chose to prosecute a case and can't prove guilt. Not a darn thing. What is the accused out? A lot of money and time.

Your government, police and legal system are always right arguments are old, tiresome, and obnoxious.

[JALLEN]

If all of that is true and their resources are as stretched as claimed, how can they afford to retry a case when there is a hung jury or other reason a mistrial is declared? I see way too much government waste to feel too sorry for "overworked" DA and ADA's. As a small business person, I work my tail off around the clock and am having to grow my business this year just to pay the additional taxes levied on me. The DA's and ADA's get their paychecks whether they win or lose. The one being tried loses money whether they win or lose.

Like I said before, it's always the people that make money off of the system that has trouble recognizing what parts of the system are broken. Lawyers on both sides still get paid whether they win or lose and whether they are trying the same case over or another one. No sympathy here.

Have you ever tried a case? You work your tail off around the clock and have to do that while trying to grow your practice, by winning when you can, because if you always lose, nobody will hire you. The trial itself is a mere final act. Time and sound advice are your stock in trade. More than most occupations, reputation is incredibly critical, and you acquire one by vigorous, candid successful competence.

You need to work at the sausage factory to understand how good sausage is made. You may not like the sausage either way.

Since involuntary servitude has been abolished, and you wouldn't work for free anyway, what exactly is your point? Broke the criminal justice system wirk more effectively if lawyers were not paid?

[mojo84]

If all of that is true and their resources are as stretched as claimed, how can they afford to retry a case when there is a hung jury or other reason a mistrial is declared? I see way too much government waste to feel too sorry for "overworked" DA and ADA's. As a small business person, I work my tail off around the clock and am having to grow my business this year just to pay the additional taxes levied on me. The DA's and ADA's get their paychecks whether they win or lose. The one being tried loses money whether they win or lose.

Like I said before, it's always the people that make money off of the system that has trouble recognizing what parts of the system are broken. Lawyers on both sides still get paid whether they win or lose and whether they are trying the same case over or another one. No sympathy here.

Have you ever tried a case? You work your tail off around the clock and have to do that while trying to grow your practice, by winning when you can, because if you always lose, nobody will hire you. The trial itself is a mere final act. Time and sound advice are your stock in trade. More than most occupations, reputation is incredibly critical, and you acquire one by vigorous, candid successful competence.

You need to work at the sausage factory to understand how good sausage is made. You may not like the sausage either way.

Since involuntary servitude has been abolished, and you wouldn't work for free anyway, what exactly is your point? Broke the criminal justice system wirk more effectively if lawyers were not paid?

Now we have waded way off into the ridiculous. Where did I say they shouldn't get paid?


Funy how the attorneys make it all about the poor attorneys when the disagreement is actually about how unfair it is for a person to have to spend their money to defend themselves against retrials because the attorneys couldn't do their job adequately. The defendant is out of pocket a substantial amount of money defending themselves.

By the way, I've made plenty sausage.

[EEllis]

The emotional toll is just one component. I made that very clear. What about the money and time the person is out? How much do you as a government employee have to kick in when you lose a case and can't prove the defendant is guilty? What does the DA or ADA lose when they chose to prosecute a case and can't prove guilt. Not a darn thing. What is the accused out? A lot of money and time.

Your government, police and legal system are always right arguments are old, tiresome, and obnoxious.

Well I did just reference one part and didn't comment on other parts. So? I don't mean that argumentatively. I don't see what the fact that I didn't address every argument you made have to do with the validity of my response to one particular argument. You certainly haven't addressed every comment I made and I haven't taken that to somehow delegitamize every argument you have made. Again what about the money and time that happens when they go to court anyway? Mistrials happen for any number of reasons that a jury can't come to a verdict is only one of them. Why should that be held to a different standard than any other mistrial? If my beliefs are so obnoxious you might just stop responding rather than continually insult me. Mind you the statement is absurd but even if it were true I have said nothing here that requires your insults.

[mojo84]

The emotional toll is just one component. I made that very clear. What about the money and time the person is out? How much do you as a government employee have to kick in when you lose a case and can't prove the defendant is guilty? What does the DA or ADA lose when they chose to prosecute a case and can't prove guilt. Not a darn thing. What is the accused out? A lot of money and time.

Your government, police and legal system are always right arguments are old, tiresome, and obnoxious.

Well I did just reference one part and didn't comment on other parts. So? I don't mean that argumentatively. I don't see what the fact that I didn't address every argument you made have to do with the validity of my response to one particular argument. You certainly haven't addressed every comment I made and I haven't taken that to somehow delegitamize every argument you have made. Again what about the money and time that happens when they go to court anyway? Mistrials happen for any number of reasons that a jury can't come to a verdict is only one of them. Why should that be held to a different standard than any other mistrial? If my beliefs are so obnoxious you might just stop responding rather than continually insult me. Mind you the statement is absurd but even if it were true I have said nothing here that requires your insults.

Where did I insult you? Don't point out where I gave my opinion about your comments but point out specifically where I insulted you.

[EEllis]

Where did I insult you? Don't point out where I gave my opinion about your comments but point out specifically where I insulted you.

I have several things running through my head regarding your passive aggressive sarcastic comment

Your government, police and legal system are always right arguments are old, tiresome, and obnoxious.

I'm not going back and forth with you on this. I will make this one last response and then I will not make any other off topic comments. These, opinion or not, were insulting. They also were off point and were personal asides that had nothing to do with the topic being discussed or any validity of any of the comments. They show your personal feeling about me and that's it.

[C-dub]

And one juror could vote to convict, while 11 vote to acquit. I'm not talking about the Grisham case, I'm talking about a seriously flawed jury system. Yes, jurors can and do ignore the evidence, as well as the lack of evidence. If the prosecution cannot pick a good jury, then that's their fault. The State has unlimited resources and few defendants enjoy the luxury of being able to fully fund a defense two or three times. A retrial also lets the State have a practice run which gives it a distinct advantage.

Chas.

I can see your point I'm just not sure it overweighs the benefit to the public but shockingly no one is lining up to hear my opinion anyway.

I do understand your opinion. However, it is also my opinion that it is outweighed by the burden to someone like myself that might have to go through multiple trials because the government could not convince 12 people of my guilt.

This is a little similar to the three days that we might have to wait for a background check to be completed. If there is no rejection, then the gun must be released to the purchaser, right? How long do they need? How many trials should they have to get a conviction?

Yeah and they can still come after you if they find something later so not much for making a point.

It sounds like you're okay with this behavior from the government.

Also, regarding a trial not being a trial unless there is a finding of guilt or not guilty. That sounds like England's policy of not calling a murder a murder until they have a conviction for that murder. That's wrong and so is this.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Okay, I'm locking this thread because it's gone way off topic and it's entirely my fault. I should not have posted.

Chas.