double jeopardy
A fine point of Oregon law, in fact, a microscopically fine point
It's such a fine point, you won't be able to see it with the naked eye. Prosecutors charged a 17-yr-old boy for having sex with his 14-yr-old girlfriend, but the grand jury rejected it. Not to worry, though, because the prosecutor went ahead as if they had indicted. Then the grand jury foreman read about this in the newspaper and went public, causing the charges to be dropped . . and refiled as different charges . . which sounds like it's unconstitutional double jeopardy . . but the Oregon Supreme Court accepted the argument that since the original court never had jurisdiction over the case, it wasn't double jeopardy . . even though the reason there was no jurisdiction was that . . there was no legal indictment in the first place. Seriously. Register-Guard (Eugene)
It's such a fine point, you won't be able to see it with the naked eye. Prosecutors charged a 17-yr-old boy for having sex with his 14-yr-old girlfriend, but the grand jury rejected it. Not to worry, though, because the prosecutor went ahead as if they had indicted. Then the grand jury foreman read about this in the newspaper and went public, causing the charges to be dropped . . and refiled as different charges . . which sounds like it's unconstitutional double jeopardy . . but the Oregon Supreme Court accepted the argument that since the original court never had jurisdiction over the case, it wasn't double jeopardy . . even though the reason there was no jurisdiction was that . . there was no legal indictment in the first place. Seriously. Register-Guard (Eugene)
Comments
Double jeopardy, as meant by our fore fathers, is a joke in today's legal system.
If you doubt that drift back to OJ's 1st trial where we was found innocent of killing whoozits. Next thing you know he's found guilty of killing whoozits in another trial!
The only difference? Semantics.
If you doubt that drift back to OJ's 1st trial where we was found innocent of killing whoozits. Next thing you know he's found guilty of killing whoozits in another trial!
The only difference? Semantics.
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 12/18/08 at 09:10 AM
Kay, I hear you and understand what you're saying but "Murder" and "Wrongful death" are both "killing" someone. Semantics! If he was innocent of killing whootzits in the first trial how did he cause a "death" (or any other kind) in the second?
BTW, I don't give 2 hoots if he did the deed or not.
BTW, I don't give 2 hoots if he did the deed or not.
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 12/18/08 at 12:00 PM
Ack! Kingmonkey, don't do that! Flashback to childhood family vacations.... need prozac... quickly....
Posted by BikerPuppy on 12/18/08 at 12:41 PM
Semantics!
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 12/18/08 at 01:35 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Category: