Double Jeopardy Question

There is no double jeopardy issue in the case of Harry Aleman; he bribed the judge and waived jury trial, so the appeals court (and the Supreme Court?) ruled (in essence) that he had never been in jeopardy in the first place.

A discussion of double jeopardy, including this case, is here

The U.S. appeals court decision is here.

Well, exactly. the constitution is intact. peace is war. slavery is freedom.

So, if the defendant has a great lawyer and if the prosecutor is a dip and the judge is incompetent, then it would be fair to say that the defendant was never in jeopardy. And, if the evidence for a trial was fabricated, and the police knew it, and the defendant is acquited, the def could be retried, couldn’t he? that’s the great thing about the supreme court…they shoot straight!

I suppose if the defendant bribed someone (that is, committed a separate crime) to get his case assigned to the dip prosecutor and the incompetent judge and therefore knew he would be acquitted, he wouldn’t be in jeopardy ( since there was no danger of conviction)

Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is sworn in, and at a bench trial when the judge begins to hear evidence.

handsomeharry, you’re evidently viewing the rules of jeopardy as some mystical, talismanic device. Jeopardy does not magically attach when certain words are spoken or certain actions taken. There is a big difference between a defendant who is in very little jeopardy because of his excellent attorney and incompetent prosecutor, and a defendant in no jeopardy because he subverted the system. The principle enshrined in our system is that the prosecution gets one bite at the apple. If they happen to take a poor bite, through their own fault, that still fulfills the mandate; if their bite is frustrated by criminal actions meant to subvert the entire system, it’s unprotected by the prohibitions against multiple jeopardy.

  • Rick