TexasCHLforum.com

"As far as one outweighing the other. Is it better that a guilty man go free or for an innocent man to lose his liberty or go bankrupt because the state has plenty of others people money and multiple mulligans?"

To answer your question, Yes, until that "guilty man" rapes or murders someone else. I don't have the answers, either way, it's not a perfect system.

txglock21 wrote:"As far as one outweighing the other. Is it better that a guilty man go free or for an innocent man to lose his liberty or go bankrupt because the state has plenty of others people money and multiple mulligans?"

To answer your question, Yes, until that "guilty man" rapes or murders someone else. I don't have the answers, either way, it's not a perfect system.

The "guilty man" can still rape or murder while the innocent man convicted in his place suffers in prison.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txglock21 wrote:"As far as one outweighing the other. Is it better that a guilty man go free or for an innocent man to lose his liberty or go bankrupt because the state has plenty of others people money and multiple mulligans?"

To answer your question, Yes, until that "guilty man" rapes or murders someone else. I don't have the answers, either way, it's not a perfect system.

The "guilty man" can still rape or murder while the innocent man convicted in his place suffers in prison.

Chas.

The "guilty man" I was talking about was the guilty man that did the crime but was set free. Not the innocent person who was wrongly sentenced. Sorry for the confusion.

EEllis wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
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?

txglock21 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txglock21 wrote:"As far as one outweighing the other. Is it better that a guilty man go free or for an innocent man to lose his liberty or go bankrupt because the state has plenty of others people money and multiple mulligans?"

To answer your question, Yes, until that "guilty man" rapes or murders someone else. I don't have the answers, either way, it's not a perfect system.

The "guilty man" can still rape or murder while the innocent man convicted in his place suffers in prison.

Chas.

The "guilty man" I was talking about was the guilty man that did the crime but was set free. Not the innocent person who was wrongly sentenced. Sorry for the confusion.

I understood what you meant, but you are assuming that the defendant in a hung jury case was guilty.

The State has the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When a defendant is found "not guilty," they are not judicially determined to be innocent. The verdict simply means the state did not meet it constitutional burden to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the state cannot convince 12 jurors (or 6 in county court) beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then the state has failed in it's burden. The state should not have multiple opportunities to meet it's burden. Do it once; do it right.

In a criminal trial, the jury must decide if the state met it's burden. In civil trials, the jury must pick a winner, though it not worded that way, therefore, a hung jury requires a retrial. Not so in criminal cases.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

It may seem that the State has unlimited resources but I've never heard of a DA deciding to try a case because he had extra deputies sitting around looking for something to do.

That "distinctive advantage" is illusory as well, as now the evidence that was used is locked in, no contradicting, or covering mistakes, no "improving your lie" as golfers say it. They might be able to change emphasis in some parts, bring in "new evidence" they didn't use before, etc. In all but the most extraordinary cases, I would think the trial proceeds about as before, with a new and perhaps perhaps more sound jury, one that knows what is expected, no eccentricities.

The defendant has seen their hand, too, and can improve from the "dress rehearsal" as well.

If the defendant can't afford it, the defense is covered by the state, albeit perhaps not as lavishly.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txglock21 wrote:"As far as one outweighing the other. Is it better that a guilty man go free or for an innocent man to lose his liberty or go bankrupt because the state has plenty of others people money and multiple mulligans?"

To answer your question, Yes, until that "guilty man" rapes or murders someone else. I don't have the answers, either way, it's not a perfect system.

The "guilty man" can still rape or murder while the innocent man convicted in his place suffers in prison.

Chas.

The "guilty man" I was talking about was the guilty man that did the crime but was set free. Not the innocent person who was wrongly sentenced. Sorry for the confusion.

I understood what you meant, but you are assuming that the defendant in a hung jury case was guilty.

The State has the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When a defendant is found "not guilty," they are not judicially determined to be innocent. The verdict simply means the state did not meet it constitutional burden to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the state cannot convince 12 jurors (or 6 in county court) beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then the state has failed in it's burden. The state should not have multiple opportunities to meet it's burden. Do it once; do it right.

In a criminal trial, the jury must decide if the state met it's burden. In civil trials, the jury must pick a winner, though it not worded that way, therefore, a hung jury requires a retrial. Not so in criminal cases.

Chas.

Gotcha Yes, I was assuming the defendant was guilty. My whole point was that whether or not a person is guilty or innocent, I pray the jury, judge or all involved get it right. Hence, my next sentence, "I don't have the answers and either way, it's not a perfect system." But, I do see what you are saying, Charles.

C-dub wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
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.

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
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.

My point proven.

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
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.

My point proven.

How?

JALLEN wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

It may seem that the State has unlimited resources but I've never heard of a DA deciding to try a case because he had extra deputies sitting around looking for something to do.

The state has free expert witnesses, free investigators, free case law researchers, free appellate attorneys, etc. The defendant has to pay for every one of these people.

JALLEN wrote:That "distinctive advantage" is illusory as well, as now the evidence that was used is locked in, no contradicting, or covering mistakes, no "improving your lie" as golfers say it. They might be able to change emphasis in some parts, bring in "new evidence" they didn't use before, etc. In all but the most extraordinary cases, I would think the trial proceeds about as before, with a new and perhaps perhaps more sound jury, one that knows what is expected, no eccentricities.

You couldn't be more wrong. The state most certainly does change its case presentation, witnesses, "additional evidence" is often "found," additional "investigation" usually occurs. A second trial in a criminal case is rarely like the first trial.

JALLEN wrote:The defendant has seen their hand, too, and can improve from the "dress rehearsal" as well.

While the defendant's attorney does get to polish their case, the defendant gets to pay for it a second time. The defendant doesn't have any of the advantages of the "free" people that the state has at its fingertips.

JALLEN wrote:If the defendant can't afford it, the defense is covered by the state, albeit perhaps not as lavishly.

You cannot be serious. Public defenders and court-appointed attorneys are the less then enthusiastic about the case, unless it's a high profile case that can bring them additional business.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

It may seem that the State has unlimited resources but I've never heard of a DA deciding to try a case because he had extra deputies sitting around looking for something to do.

The state has free expert witnesses, free investigators, free case law researchers, free appellate attorneys, etc. The defendant has to pay for every one of these people.

JALLEN wrote:That "distinctive advantage" is illusory as well, as now the evidence that was used is locked in, no contradicting, or covering mistakes, no "improving your lie" as golfers say it. They might be able to change emphasis in some parts, bring in "new evidence" they didn't use before, etc. In all but the most extraordinary cases, I would think the trial proceeds about as before, with a new and perhaps perhaps more sound jury, one that knows what is expected, no eccentricities.

You couldn't be more wrong. The state most certainly does change its case presentation, witnesses, "additional evidence" is often "found," additional "investigation" usually occurs. A second trial in a criminal case is rarely like the first trial.

I didn't have a great deal of experience in criminal matters. They didn't catch my clients! My brief encounters suggest that the DA always plays the best, most complete hand possible, certainly a prima facie case on every count. Otherwise, why bother? They sometimes aren't that good, and sometimes things don't go as planned. Right, OJ?

The evidence used must be regarded as the best they have, complete. All that testimony under oath, recorded verbatim, is locked in. Material enhancements by a witness, changing the story, providing additional facts, are a fertile ground for impeachment as you know.

JALLEN wrote:The defendant has seen their hand, too, and can improve from the "dress rehearsal" as well.

While the defendant's attorney does get to polish their case, the defendant gets to pay for it a second time. The defendant doesn't have any of the advantages of the "free" people that the state has at its fingertips.

I can't speak to the economics. There is no doubt it is expensive. Being accused of a crime is an unpleasant business, more so if you are innocent. I actually did represent an innocent defendant, once. Fortunately, I was able to convince the DA the fatal flaws in the case were real and get it dropped prior to trial.

JALLEN wrote:If the defendant can't afford it, the defense is covered by the state, albeit perhaps not as lavishly.

You cannot be serious. Public defenders and court-appointed attorneys are the less then enthusiastic about the case, unless it's a high profile case that can bring them additional business.

That speaks to the mentality of those lawyers and their impressions of what their oath and duty require. In CA, appointed non public defenders were able to bill, albeit at a lower hourly rate, and get expenses for investigation. It wasn't as remunerative as other work, but nobody made you do it, and you had your reputation to consider. Most defendants are guilty, but you have to do the best you can with the facts as they are. If you can't/won't do that, then maybe you should sell insurance or something.

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 are on the line.

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 ..........

EEllis wrote: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.