[goodluckchuck]

Only an acquittal, meaning the jury agreed that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One mistrial makes sense. Perhaps there was someone with doubts, but those doubts were unreasonable. Or there was one person who believed the accused was guilty and that person was unreasonable. This could be fixed with a new jury.

After two mistrials (for failure to reach a consensus) it’d appear that reasonable minds may differ and the case must not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ianhawes]

Often times, when a mistrial is declared and a retrial occurs, prosecutors will change strategy. Additionally, rulings from the previous trial are not automatically carried over, so suppressed evidence (for example) can be potentially displayed during a trial if the judge rules differently.

Another factor, which is more common in state courts, is the lesser charge consideration. Upon a retrial, the judge can instruct the jury to find a defendant guilty of a lesser crime in lieu of the originally charged crime. For example, manslaughter instead of murder.

Overall it’s obviously stacked against the defendant in federal court. Adding in unlimited retrials basically guarantees a defendant will be found guilty eventually.

[tannhauser23]

The defense also gets to retool its strategy in light of the evidence. Defense also gets to make evidentiary motions. Retrials don't always favor the prosecution.

I think the most retrials I've seen (stemming from hung juries, not reversals) is the John Gotti Jr. case, where he got four mistrials. Prosecutors decided not to seek retrial after that.

[jjoonathan]

Don't you just love how first you learn about the Bill of Rights, and then you learn that there's a bullshit loophole our judicial system uses to bypass every goddamn rule in the entire Bill of Rights?

[willcipriano]

The best part is magically none of these cases make it to the Supreme Court. We have had several decades of open and shut constitutional violations including mass warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, civil asset forfeiture, executive order overreach. No ruling on any of it.

[md_]

I mean, there are a ton of problems with the criminal justice system, but white, well-off defendants who can afford non-court-appointed lawyers getting convicted after a single mistrial isn't really top of the list, is it?

I read https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-ca... and, well, this guy's not exactly a poster child for "the system is out to get you."

I think the "our system is rigged" argument is a bit more compelling when looking at, say, the mandatory minimum sentences for crack possession.

[jjoonathan]

How on Earth is "other people have it worse" supposed to be some kind of counterargument?

No shit other people have it worse. I'd put Speedy and Public Trial and Due Process (Civil Asset Forfeiture) problems as the top of the list, with Double Jeopardy erosion a ways down. Mandatory minimums sound like they belong on the list too, but I'm not familiar enough to know exactly where to place them -- probably high on the list. In any case, one bad thing on a list certainly does not invalidate another bad thing on the list. That's an even more dogshit idea than the loopholes themselves.

> this guy's not exactly a poster child

Standing up for rights means standing up for bastards. Always has, always will, because that's when rights get tested.

[from]

Interestingly, the federalists tried to argue against the Bill of Rights by essentially saying if an individual right was not mentioned in the Bill of Rights than that omission could set a precedent that the individual did not have that right. Of course now we know that everything that isn’t explicitly protected has been taken from us so I guess it’s good they ultimately lost that debate.

On a somewhat positive note, there are things like the Speedy Trial Act that mandate charges be dismissed if a trial is not brought quickly enough. But it’s often not very effective because they are allowed to delay the trial basically indefinitely if the judge finds it is in the “ends of justice” to do so. There also have been major cases thrown out over Brady (evidence disclosure) violations recently which is a step in the right direction. I think defendants now probably have more rights than they ever did but the problem is that 1) there are way more laws to break today than ever before 2) federal prosecutors are less interested in the public good and more in their political ambitions and careers instead 3) good legal representation has become incredibly expensive.

[jfengel]

Of course now we know that everything that isn’t explicitly protected has been taken from us so I guess it’s good they ultimately lost that debate.

And even the things that are explicitly protected are subject to the interpretation of the Constitution, via the ouija board that the Supreme Court uses to contact the "founders".

[md_]

> Standing up for rights means standing up for bastards. Always has, always will, because that's when rights get tested.

What right of his do you think was violated?

[JacobThreeThree]

How is this person's race relevant?

Also, if he represented himself, is he really a "well off defendant who can afford non-court-appointed lawyer"?

[md_]

He had a lawyer in his first trial.

Race is, of course, relevant, since case outcomes dramatically differ by race.