Question for Beryl_Mooncalf

Bricker
Look at my link. The answer is there. Sme crime? same elements? Same soverigns? Your question is answered there.
Now I’ll give you a hint. The RAP is a red herring, but don’t tell
Rhum Runner, he totally missed that one.

TeaElle

I’m waiting, do it…or are you all mouth?

Yes! Too much! Way too much for me. My fraud is exposed. I thought I could get away with it, but clever little [Beryl was too quick, too cunning! You got me. It should be obvious to everyone here that the fact that I don’t feel like typing out an answer to a six part property law exam question at the behest of some jack-off, I mean, Beryl is irrefutible proof that I am incapable of doing so. You have utterly overwhelmed my limited faculties, and I surrender to your judicial wisdom. We shall now all follow the law according to **Beryl,/b] Cooley '77.

Yeah, I’m not even a lawyer and I could have…

Well, actually, I couldn’t have answered the question off the top of my head but I’m sure I could’ve figured it out. What I couldn’t have done was dodge it with some ludicrous hypothetical which has nothing to do with anything.

I’m feeling kind of embarrassed now that Beryl endorsed a couple of my answers in GQ threads. Makes me want to go back and fact-check them because if Beryl agrees I gotta think there’s something wrong.

And Beryl, sweetie? Before you fire off a round at me about how great your life is and how I could never afford to hire you, let me express my satisfaction at how great your life is and my assurance that based on your responses here, I don’t think anyone can afford to hire you…if they want a good result.

Clearly Beryl has overwhelmed my coding as well. You’ve reduced me to jello, your victory complete.

Rhum Runner I wish you luck on your bar exam, each and every time you take it.

Otto
I was being nice to you, GQ isn’t the place to be otherwise.
Don’t quit your day job.

Otto,

the floor is open, let’s see your best effort. “Scared man never wins.”

He’s gold, I tell you. Pure gold. Seldom before has the SDMB been witness to such a wit, such a supernatural ability to turn a phrase, such penetrating legal reasoning. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the presence of greatness. Remember this day, for you can tell your grandchildren how you were there

Sir Beryl I can only hope that when I have been in practice for twenty-five years I will be half the lawyer you are. I know, I know, it probably isn’t possible, but we all need to have a dream. I’m so glad you’ve come into my life. Will you marry me?

See? There’s that dick again. Jesus, Beryl, you’re gonna make that thing raw, you keep yankin’ on it like that. Try keeping it in your pants. It’s really more attractive that way, trust me.

Shayna

  Are you megalophobic?

BERYL, you are embarrassing yourself. Seriously. Assume for a moment that I am not attacking you – because I’m not – and listen to me.

In the thread that prompted this hijack to the Pit, you and BRICKER were discussing lesser included offenses. In that context, he posted the very same hypothetical he posted here. The subject of the hypothetical is therefore screamingly obvious: It is LIOs, the subject you were discussing when the question was posted the first time. Yet, unaccountably, you construe it as “a very weak hypo looking for application or exception to Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.” This would indicate that you not only do not understand the question, you don’t even remember a conversation you had yesterday.

But let’s look at your stab at this anyway, keeping in mind that the fact you are miles off is explained in part by the fact that you totally misidentified the subject of the question:

The facts are given: The person was tried for mopery and acquitted. Mopery is defined. What would be the relevance of knowing that, say, he was on Main Street, it was 3 a.m., and his clothes were dark brown? You are asking for additional facts when none are needed to answer the question.

Who cares? What difference could that possibly make? And what do you mean “grounds for acquittal,” anyway? Something other than insufficiency of the evidence? Isn’t that generally the grounds for acquittal?

The hypothetical clearly states that we are talking about one criminal event: “You are then re-indicted, based on the same act, for dopery.”

The hypothetical clearly states that we are talking about one jurisdiction: “I, the legislature, create two crimes: mopery and dopery.”

I’m also amazed that you would consider a seven-part Bar exam question which includes, among other things, the Rule Against Perpetuities, to be a “more realistic” question that a simple one – and, really, it is very simple – on LIOs.

Please believe me when I tell you that you are not coming out smelling like a rose here, and the wisest course for you at this point is to quit the field. I know you claim to have your law degree, and I have no reason to doubt it, but based on your posts here and in the other thread, I would bet the ranch you are not practicing and have not practiced in a long time, maybe ever.

Remember the old adage: It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

And just to clarify: Double jeopardy is implicated in that if mopery is an LIO of dopery (or vice versa), d.j. would prevent a second prosecution for the second crime after an acquittal for the first. But that’s not what the question is asking: It’s asking whether one (either one) is a LIO of the other.

Q.E.D.

It is a weak attempt to see anyone recognizes the fact that the first acquittal is relevant to the second action. In reality, it matters not whether there had been a conviction or an acquittal, as either can bar a subsequent trial in the “same jurisdiction” or, neither will stand as a bar against a subsequent trail, for the same facts, when the subsequent jurisdiction prosecuting the matter is independently sovereign. Federal Government and State Government are independently sovereign.

There are circumstances where the retrial is permissible, even under the scrutiny of the 5th amendments prohibition against double jeopardy, by either sovereign, after the other has acted. The test is the independence of the sovereigns in prosecuting the matter, and to what degree, if any, there is a link between the two entities. The greater the link, the greater the chance of double jeopardy attaching.

We have seen cases where the defendant has been acquitted of murder, and later, under a Title 42 USC action, been convicted of violating the civil rights of the murder victim, using precisely the same facts that the State trial unsuccessfully adjudicated in the murder trial.

Let’s see if Beryl’s latest post is any more substantial going English to French to German to English:

"A weak attempt is to be seen that everyone identifies the fact that the first payment at the second action is appropriate. In reality is it necessarily, if it had given a conviction or a payment, how in or other from can a following examination in the iurisdiction von?same closes? or neither one nor the other one than bar against a following trace will hold themselves for the same facts, if the following iurisdiction, which pursues the material, is independently sovereign. The foederale government and the state government are independently sovereign.

"There are circumstances, where retrial even under the embarrassingly exact examination 5. Alteration prohibition against the double danger of or other princes is permitted, after the other one acted. The attempt is independence sovereigns, by pursuing the material and on, which degree gives it if necessary a connection between that two things. More is large the connection, more is the luck of the definition of double danger large entities.

“We saw cases, where the deplored one was freed later from the condemned murder and under an action from USC title 42 to hurt the citizen rights of the murder victim by using the same facts with accuracy those the state examination without success, which was judged in the murder examination.”

I hope this clears things up.

Could you spell it out for us inquisitive idiots out here in the cheap seats?

Jodi
The issue herein is basically the sovereignty of the prosecuting entities. The matter can go either way. The fact that there was an acquittal isn’t really important. Regardless of an acquittal or a conviction double jeopardy could attaches, albeit for different reasons. It attaches as a bar to twice being held to answer in the case of the acquittal, and it attaches as a bar to double punishment in the event that there was a conviction in the original matter.

However…

The real question isn’t related to the LIO, which (which was not an issue I raised, but Bricker raised and asked me to defend it), instead, the question regarding whether there can be a subsequent prosecution for the other crime is the independent sovereignty of the entities seeking to prosecute the matter. Without additional information, it can’t be raised.

The argument that one crime may have occurred at a different time (IE, a window provided for one and not the other) is not as relevant as it appears, because the facts are essentially the same. However, without more facts, that is can’t be supported.
Consequently, more facts were called for.

Jodi, any attorney who would argue this as other than a violation of the 5th amendment is clearly, not arguing in his clients best interest. If the case is barred by 5th amendment protection, then the matter is finished. If it isn’t, then you go from there.

iampunha

…another reason to “just say no”.

Did you read my post? It’s the SAME JURISDICTION. It freakin’ says so. There is no question of jurisdictional sovereignty, no question of state versus federal jurisdiction because it’s the SAME JURISDICTION. This does not touch upon your knowledge of law, it touches upon your ability to read.

And the question is not whether the first acquittal CAN bar the second prosecution but whether it DOES bar the second prosecution, which – let me help you out here – it will if it is a LIO but will not if it is not a LIO.

Would you like to takee a stab at answering that question, now that it’s been spelled out for you?

Christ on a crutch, BERYL. It’s the

SAME JURISDICTION!!!

There is only one “prosecuting entity.” Read the OP.

Yes. Obviously. If one crime is a LIO of the other, the 5th A. attaches. If one crime is NOT a LIO of the other, the 5th A. does not attach. So does it? Is one a LIO of the other? THIS IS THE QUESTION THAT YOU ARE BEING ASKED.

My God, man. Do yourself a favor and call it a night, so BRICKER can tell SPOOJE the answer.