The grand jury stage is the indictment stage. If the lover recanted, then the DA didn’t get an indictment, which means the suspect was never “in jeopardy” to begin with. A speedy trial act only comes into play if there’s already an indictment that’s been voted. And if there is no indictment, there is no statute of limitations for murder. A statute of limitations is the time within which a case must be brought before the grand jury. So I’m confused, but I’m guessing that the grand jurors intended to vote an indictment but couldn’t punch out the chads.
While I may have the case messed up, ISTR that they did use the word “indict” pretty loosely, the point was that in Florida you have 175 days from the arrest to the trial to satisfy the Speedy Trial Law.
Dateline could have it wrong, but there was no trial, and the DA said it was because he did not have enough evidence to convict.
Keith B, the case you are referring to in your first example happened in Louisville, Kentucky. A guy named Mel Ignatow killed his girlfriend, Brenda Sue Schaffer. He was acquitted of the murder at his trial, but conclusive evidence was later found (photographs) proving he had in fact killed.
Ignatow was later convicted of a different charge (either perjury or a federal charge) and served about 5 years. He’s out now.
Remember, even a surveillance camera tape is still just “evidence”–not absolute proof. There’s no such thing, in court. Same with DNA. A jury can always decide to disregard evidence.
Even if 1,000 witnesses see OJ do it, and testify to that, the jury could still decide that he was innocent. It’s up to them to weigh evidence.
IIRC, I saw a documentary on A&E about a year ago that focused on the Civil Rights movement. Again, IIRC, some Southern White men were put on trial for the murder of a Black man. They were acquitted of the crime, and then sold their story to a magazine. I thought they admitted the murder, but since they had already had a trial they couldn’t be touched. (I don’t think this is the same case where the Feds came in with a Civil Rights violation charge.)
Very true. It’s worth pointing out, though, that this works in only one direction – that is, the jury may disregard whatever evidence it wishes to reach a verdict of not guilty. However, a jury’s guilty verdict must be supported by the record. If a jury convicts me of robbery, when the only evidence they hear is that I was lingering in the area before the robbery, that verdict may be set aside by the trial judge, or overturned on appeal. The jury’s finding of fact is given great weight, and the evidence, on appeal, is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution; still, there must be credible evidence on the record supporting the jury’s guilty verdict.