Typically the double jeopardy clause bars a retrial after a mistrial. The only exception is if the mistrial was a "manifest necessity", with the jury being unable to reach a verdict being the most common reason declaring a mistrial would be a manifest necessity. Prosecutorial misconduct wouldn't count, since not being a corrupt fucker completely removes the need for a mistrial. The prosecution would have to be completely retarded to be going for a mistrial under these circumstances, which given the constitutional violation is a distinct possibility.
I don't know all the ins and outs of how this works, and there's probably a ton of case law that governs when exactly a retrial is allowed following a mistrial (ie how the manifest necessity standard is applied in practice). My understanding is that is that there's a presumption against allowing a retrial due to the constitutional status of the double jeopardy prohibition. Most of the exceptions I'm aware of either involve the jury not being able to reach a verdict or shenanigans from the defense, since you don't want to reward the defense for sabotaging the trial by barring a retrial.
The other thing is (and again I'm not totally sure of this) they might not have to make an official finding of prosecutorial misconduct to bar a retrial. It may be that the standards for declaring prosecutorial misconduct are higher than those needed to bar a retrial, since a finding of prosecutorial misconduct can lead to all sorts of nasty consequences for the prosecutors. It might be enough to say the defense wasn't at fault so they wouldn't be rewarding bad behavior from that side by barring another prosecution.
I don’t really know all about how mistrials work but how much would this help the prosecution? It would just be another trial with the same evidence, right? Are they hoping for another Judge who’s more pozzed, or do they just want to bleed Kyle’s defense fund?
And if it gets dismissed with prejudice then that looks even worse for the prosecution than losing. They’re probably just better off taking their chances that the jury will convict Kyle based on politics anyway.
The theory is that they're hoping for a more pozzed judge. Kyle's defense seems to be doing nothing for him, and the prosecution's only obstacle (other than their own incompetence) is that this judge doesn't take any bullshit.
the prosecution's only obstacle (other than their own incompetence) is that this judge doesn't take any bullshit.
One of the best things that could come out of this complete shitshow is the judge recommending this prosecutor for disbarment.
Well, maybe. As long as someone this shit is in the job it could in theory mean they will just fuck up for a long time still to come, although whether that will always work against them is a different issue if shitty judges then still side with them because 🤡🌍
Not stupid, evil. We know what kind of people were rioting over Jacob Blake's well-deserved shooting, because 100% of Rittenhouse's sample were criminal scum. The people who want to avenge the child rapist, the strangler, or Byecep do so because they too are scumbags.
I really meant more of a mix of both; the people pulling the strings are more evil than stupid, and the useful idiots on the ground and in the jury chamber are more stupid than evil.
A mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct would bar a retrial unless something on the order of the dirty trick they played on Cosby happens. If this is the prosecution's game they're even bigger retards than we thought.
That constitutional violation probably makes it harder for them to get it without prejudice, but they've shown themselves to be complete and utter retards, so your theory is very much a possibility. They would have to convince the judge, and it seems like he's completely sick of their shit. Maybe they were hoping the judge would be crooked like in the Cosby case.
It would just be another trial with the same evidence, right?
It's not just the evidence that makes the prosecution look bad. It's also how they presented it. The next time they could avoid all the fuck-ups they committed. They could avoid all the questions that torpedoed their case and the new jury would never hear about those things.
Typically the double jeopardy clause bars a retrial after a mistrial. The only exception is if the mistrial was a "manifest necessity", with the jury being unable to reach a verdict being the most common reason declaring a mistrial would be a manifest necessity. Prosecutorial misconduct wouldn't count, since not being a corrupt fucker completely removes the need for a mistrial. The prosecution would have to be completely retarded to be going for a mistrial under these circumstances, which given the constitutional violation is a distinct possibility.
I thought that was only true if it can be shown that the prosecutor was intentionally trying to force a mistrial.
I don't know all the ins and outs of how this works, and there's probably a ton of case law that governs when exactly a retrial is allowed following a mistrial (ie how the manifest necessity standard is applied in practice). My understanding is that is that there's a presumption against allowing a retrial due to the constitutional status of the double jeopardy prohibition. Most of the exceptions I'm aware of either involve the jury not being able to reach a verdict or shenanigans from the defense, since you don't want to reward the defense for sabotaging the trial by barring a retrial.
The other thing is (and again I'm not totally sure of this) they might not have to make an official finding of prosecutorial misconduct to bar a retrial. It may be that the standards for declaring prosecutorial misconduct are higher than those needed to bar a retrial, since a finding of prosecutorial misconduct can lead to all sorts of nasty consequences for the prosecutors. It might be enough to say the defense wasn't at fault so they wouldn't be rewarding bad behavior from that side by barring another prosecution.
I don’t really know all about how mistrials work but how much would this help the prosecution? It would just be another trial with the same evidence, right? Are they hoping for another Judge who’s more pozzed, or do they just want to bleed Kyle’s defense fund?
And if it gets dismissed with prejudice then that looks even worse for the prosecution than losing. They’re probably just better off taking their chances that the jury will convict Kyle based on politics anyway.
The theory is that they're hoping for a more pozzed judge. Kyle's defense seems to be doing nothing for him, and the prosecution's only obstacle (other than their own incompetence) is that this judge doesn't take any bullshit.
One of the best things that could come out of this complete shitshow is the judge recommending this prosecutor for disbarment.
Well, maybe. As long as someone this shit is in the job it could in theory mean they will just fuck up for a long time still to come, although whether that will always work against them is a different issue if shitty judges then still side with them because 🤡🌍
You mean the jury convicts out of fear of retribution like with Chauvin
That’s part of it, but I’m willing to believe there’s plenty of people stupid enough to want Kyle locked up without being threatened.
Not stupid, evil. We know what kind of people were rioting over Jacob Blake's well-deserved shooting, because 100% of Rittenhouse's sample were criminal scum. The people who want to avenge the child rapist, the strangler, or Byecep do so because they too are scumbags.
I really meant more of a mix of both; the people pulling the strings are more evil than stupid, and the useful idiots on the ground and in the jury chamber are more stupid than evil.
According to the jurors, yes
A mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct would bar a retrial unless something on the order of the dirty trick they played on Cosby happens. If this is the prosecution's game they're even bigger retards than we thought.
Maybe they're hoping for a mistrial without prejudice.
"It wasn't intentional misconduct, your honor. I'm just overworked, stressed, emotionally invested, retarded and whatnot." - the prosecutor probably
That would be the absolute best case for the prosecution considering how badly some witnesses appear to have backfired for them.
That constitutional violation probably makes it harder for them to get it without prejudice, but they've shown themselves to be complete and utter retards, so your theory is very much a possibility. They would have to convince the judge, and it seems like he's completely sick of their shit. Maybe they were hoping the judge would be crooked like in the Cosby case.
It's not just the evidence that makes the prosecution look bad. It's also how they presented it. The next time they could avoid all the fuck-ups they committed. They could avoid all the questions that torpedoed their case and the new jury would never hear about those things.
WTF? A reasonably objective article from Politico? What has the world come to?