Originally Posted by Joe in PNG
The prosecutor would be happy with a mistrial. It just means they get to try the case again having learned from their mistakes. They don't care about the cost, but it's very costly for the defendant. What the state doesn't want is a mistrial with prejudice. They've lost the case, not on its merits, but because they seriously fucked up, i.e. abuse of process, etc. That could also result in Binger (or as I call him, LittleBinger) losing his job. They don't get another try. I haven't decided if they rather have this than a not guilty verdict. That is a decision by a jury on the merits of the case. It would probably have more of a sour political taste.
Anyway, Binger kept reminding me of someone and I finally figured out why. Kind of like Clark Kent when he takes of his glasses and you have that "Ah ha" moment.
I hate Reddit but someone linked me to a godawful page among godawful pages and told me to trust them. I'll save you having to follow the link with the textfile I saved of the only good post ever made in that hovel.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cringetopia..._has_over_300/MOD - 6h - Stickied comment - edited 6h
-----
Locked because y’all can’t behave. We will NOT tolerate comments that are trying to justify convicted pedophiles assaulting people. Just because someone shows up to the party wearing a sexy gun does NOT mean he was asking for it. The science is settled.
Edit: Okay fine I’m gonna unlock it if y’all will just please stop DMing me breadtube links about the Call of Duty to white supremacy pipeline.
-----
Outstanding. In the back of my mind, I had the same feeling with no idea whatsoever where it was coming from. You nailed it.
Anyway, Binger kept reminding me of someone and I finally figured out why. Kind of like Clark Kent when he takes of his glasses and you have that "Ah ha" moment.
- -
As an aside, I’m on the way out the door from work today, and I ran into an old colleague who has typically skewed far left. Said colleague quickly started a discussion on this trial, with comments to the effect that it’s a debacle because the judge is a rabid right winger who’s already decided on the verdict, and has been reading magazines during testimony. I muttered something along the lines of ‘that would be pretty bad if it were true…’ and then proceeded to GTFOOT, because, reasons. Plus, I was tired after a day of work.
Long way around to the point: there are some societal divisions that are ingrained deeply enough that I don’t think they can be smoothed over at this stage.
Apologies for the quasi-buzzkill bottom line, but that’s exactly the way it was this fine evening, Nov 2021.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
I spit-balled maybe the prosecutor was fishing for a mistrial or a do-over and an attorney on another forum said:
If the court determines that the prosecution provoked the mistrial, jeopardy attached when the jury was seated, so the case could be dismissed with no retrial.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Plain English, meaning: if the prosecution throws the fight and takes a dive, the court can say “Fine, FU. That’s where this one ends.”
Correct?
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
That's my read. Further from the same attorney:
The judge just essentially said that 1 more violation will be a mistrial. Because he has been warned explicitly, it could very well be a dismissal with prejudice because it will be clear that the prosecution caused the mistrial."Can You Be Prosecuted Again After a Mistrial?
A second trial may be permitted where a mistrial is the result of manifest necessity,6 as when, for example, the jury cannot reach a verdict7 or circumstances plainly prevent the continuation of the trial.8
The question of whether there is double jeopardy becomes more difficult, however, when the doctrine of manifest necessity is called upon to justify a second trial following a mistrial granted by the trial judge because of some event within the prosecutor’s control or because of prosecutorial misconduct or because of error or abuse of discretion by the judge himself. There must ordinarily be a balancing of the defendant’s right in having the trial completed against the public interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments.9 Thus, when, after jeopardy attached, a mistrial was granted because of a defective indictment, the Court held that retrial was not barred; a trial judge properly exercises his discretion in cases in which an impartial verdict cannot be reached or in which a verdict on conviction would have to be reversed on appeal because of an obvious error.
If an error could make reversal on appeal a certainty, it would not serve ‘the ends of public justice’ to require that the government proceed with its proof when, if it succeeded before the jury, it would automatically be stripped of that success by an appellate court.10 On the other hand, when, after jeopardy attached, a prosecutor successfully moved for a mistrial because a key witness had inadvertently not been served and could not be found, the Court held a retrial barred, because the prosecutor knew prior to the selection and swearing of the jury that the witness was unavailable.11
Although this case appeared to establish the principle that an error of the prosecutor or of the judge leading to a mistrial could not constitute a manifest necessity for terminating the trial, Somerville distinguished and limited Downum to situations in which the error lends itself to prosecutorial manipulation, in being the sort of instance that the prosecutor could use to abort a trial that was not proceeding successfully and obtain a new trial that would be to his advantage.12"
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Good copy, @BBI, thanks.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
NP. I'm just parroting, as it was a lesson for me as well.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I think there are similarities in both cases. Both made bad decisions. Neither made a decision to justify someone trying to kill them.
I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
The lunatics are running the asylum
