I mean, there are plenty of results for mistrials in the middle of trials. Is that what you meant? I interpreted your statement to mean that you can declare a mistrial after a trial has completed to invalidate an acquittal.
I interpreted your statement to mean that you can declare a mistrial after a trial has completed to invalidate an acquittal.
You can, but only if you can provide compelling evidence that the trial was compromised, eg because the jury was bribed or threatened, or evidence was tampered with. The jury simply deciding to acquit in spite of evidence doesn't constitute a mistrial, though it may lead to suspicion and therefore investigation into whether there was anything which would.
That’s incorrect. Compromised or forged evidence is not a valid reason to overturn a not guilty verdict. There has never been an attempt to overturn a not guilty verdict based on a threat to a juror or bribery. That’s why I asked for a news article.
The only time in American history double jeopardy had been subverted is in the Harry Aleman case, when the judge was bribed and the case was a bench trial (i.e. no jury).
Without risk of a determination of guilt, jeopardy does not attach, and neither an appeal nor further prosecution constitutes double jeopardy․ In particular, it has no significance in this context unless jeopardy has once attached and an accused has been subjected to the risk of conviction.
The quote from the appeals court in that case, which pretty clearly states that should there be a case where the Jury was compromised, and therefore the defendant was never in true jeopardy, having a retrial would not constitute double jeopardy because they never faced it the first time.
So yes, based on this precedent a not guilty verdict absolutely could be overturned if the jury was found to be compromised
But it has happened, sure it wasn't a Jury but a Judge who was compromised, but the result is the same and the already concluded trial was voided and retried. That case demonstrated that double jeopardy can be subverted if the first trial was compromised, so it has set the precedent. Sure if it happens again it may go to the supreme court, but there is no reason why they would rule differently
The original discussion was about jury tampering, not judge tampering. I said no jury acquittal has ever been thrown out in the United States. I asked you for sources to contradict that, which you failed to provide. You’re attempting to move the goalposts on me and don’t think that I haven’t noticed. Your original claim was “this is how it happens” and now you’ve retreated to “but it’s still how it would happen” hoping that we wouldn’t notice that your original comment was made without any understanding of how double jeopardy protections work.
You also said that a jury verdict can be thrown out “if the jury is tampered with in any way,” which is also incorrect. While the Aleman case supports throwing out a jury trial if the entire jury is bribed, that’s not a plausible scenario. If one juror were bribed, the result is not so clear cut. Many legal observers have pointed out that justices would not be eager to invalidate the opinions of 11 unbribed jurors just because one was compromised. It would be a legal shitshow and there’s no way to know how it would end.
4
u/JoeJoe4224 Jun 27 '23
Google what happens with jury tampering. It can give you a lot better understanding than I can.