Show of Hands

the problem with the case the first time is that they were pushing the death penalty. they couldn't prove caey did it with evidence and couldn't send her to her death without it

Thanks for the link by the way. It appears that my law teacher had no idea what he was talking about. But also in my honest opinion there SHOULD be an exception for sufficient NEW evidence found after acquittal. It's only right to assure that a criminal isn't set free.

In my honest opinion even if they DID retry her I don't think the new evidence is enough to convict her. If the jury let her go of the original evidence they'll never convict her unless she admits it. 30 days. If she isn't a murderer she still the worst mother in the world.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Double+Jeopardy

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Double+Jeopardy

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Double+Jeopardy

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Double+Jeopardy

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Double+Jeopardy

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Double+Jeopardy

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Double+Jeopardy

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Double+Jeopardy

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Double+Jeopardy

You've stated nothing based on hard law or the Constitution. Double jeopardy is in place so that individuals cannot be tried over and over. The judicial system gets their opportunity and should have all their ducks lined up as correct. If they don't win, it's over. Thanks for your response back.

Nope. Just like you shouldn't base poorly thought out laws on your emotional gut response to an overpublicized and exceptional trial.

@boeboe- regardless of what new evidence is found, a U.S. citizen may not be tried on the same charges after previously being found "not guilty"- even if they confessed. The only that they could do is find evidence that she committed a DIFFERENT crime and try her on new charges.

I think the law is just there to prevent the case from being taken to another jury who might find then guilty. If that we're the case they could just keep putting the defendant on trial until they came across a guilty verdict.

It is to my understanding that the law doesn't prohibit a retrial when there is NEW evidence found. To use an extreme example if Anthony were to exit the court room and shout at a recording camera "I DID IT!!!!" The prosecution can retry her on that basis.

Really? Care to explain that answer

That's actually the case. The constitution doesn't protect people from evidence. If they find new stuff they can try them again. Completely constitutional.

ACTUALLY if NEW evidence is found they can try her without a problem. Those "double Jeopardy laws" aren't what you think.

It called The Constitution.

You can't be charged for the same thing. In the cases that take years I imagine they are charged on different crimes. They could charge her for weird searches if that was illegal but not for the murder.

Just drop it already! It's over!!!

Double Jeopardy should NOT be allowed under any circumstances. That's their job as prosecutors to gather sufficient amount of evidence before making accusations. If they don't, then you need to improve at your job! Double Jeopardy would give them far too much power... and they already have enough.

Why not?

Correct.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Absolutely correct and why some cases take years to go to trial.

Extremely intelligent mindset. Thanks for commenting.

Support your answer with some legal basis.

Cite 3 cases you know of? Bet that won't happen.

Wrong

True

I really agree with you. Lets hope they never sleep.

Someone I agree with.

Really? Why? Explain your interpretation of the law. Lets not confuse morality with legality.

Really? When did this become the law? This is why some trials take years to prosecute. It's double jeopardy.

Really? When did this law become effective? 33 years in the law and I never heard this interpretation.

Really? Explain this comment.

Really?

⚡OMG⚡. Investigative incompetence doesn't allow for Constitutional violations. All those thousands of hours and someone missed this?
Double jeopardy is double jeopardy. If there's justice she'll never be able to show her face in public again.

OJ Simpson

As bad as the new evidence looks it only proves that she considered murdering her kid, not that she actually did.

Honestly, I think that double jeopardy should be allowed if new, significant evidence is found - for all cases, not just murder.

You can't change the law just because they found the evidence now

This is just a case of justice failing there have been several. People shouldn't be willing to throw away the rights of others to extract their version of revenge.

I disagree. We tend to make poor choices when our emotional fires are stoked.

Yes it is.

Pinky, you are an embarrassment of the female race. I would refer to you as a ****(c u next thursday), but I can't bc that's generalization, and you shouldn't generalize other ppl... Especially not your own sex, bc we do not all think the same!!!!!

Pinky, you are an embarrassment of the female race. I would refer to you as a ****(c u next thursday), but I can't bc that's generalization, and you shouldn't generalize other ppl... Especially not your own sex, bc we do not all think the same!!!!!