Topic: hell no
started by: Malcolm
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2016,10:01
< A new break > in the OJ case. Yes, that OJ.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 04 2016,10:27
Doesn't really mean anything, the chain of evidence there is nonexistent. Plus there's also double-jeopardy.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2016,10:31
(TPRJones @ Mar. 04 2016,12:27)
QUOTE
Doesn't really mean anything, the chain of evidence there is nonexistent. Plus there's also double-jeopardy.
New evidence trumps DJ if it's big enough. I think video footage of OJ stabbing them would be cause enough to reopen things. But the thing's been buried so fucking long.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 04 2016,10:42
(Malcolm @ Mar. 04 2016,13:31)
QUOTE
(TPRJones @ Mar. 04 2016,12:27)
QUOTE
Doesn't really mean anything, the chain of evidence there is nonexistent. Plus there's also double-jeopardy.
New evidence trumps DJ if it's big enough, I think.
Yes.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 04 2016,10:56
Are you < sure >? It seems to go against what I thought the law was, which is in agreement on that point with wikipedia.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2016,10:58
(TPRJones @ Mar. 04 2016,12:56)
QUOTE
Are you < sure >? It seems to go against what I thought the law was, which is in agreement on that point with wikipedia.
DJ was intended to prevent the state from taking you to court for the same shit perpetually with the same evidence. It means they can't play jury or judge roulette forever.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 04 2016,11:53
Right, but I can't find anything in the double jeopardy clause or the precedent cases about it being trumped by new evidence. I think they have to come up with a different charge in order to prosecute him again.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2016,12:05
(TPRJones @ Mar. 04 2016,13:53)
QUOTE
Right, but I can't find anything in the double jeopardy clause or the precedent cases about it being trumped by new evidence. I think they have to come up with a different charge in order to prosecute him again.
No, they can get you for the same one. < It doesn't work like this >. There is no statute of limitations on murder. New, compelling evidence is reason enough to reopen a trial.
Hmm, < this link > supports TPR, as does the < LAPD >. That seems bullshit. If the legal system is about justice instead of going through procedural motions, then new evidence can paint an entirely different picture of the crime.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 04 2016,13:20
Sure, but the way prosecutors like to game the system then you'd have bad ones that want to use their government power improperly holding out evidence intentionally so they can get more shots at trial. Screw that.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2016,13:22
I could still swear going over this shit in civics/gov't class back in the day. It was made very explicit that the law isn't applied as naively as you want. I know that evidence of jury tampering is an exception.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 04 2016,13:24
I never said I wanted it this way, just that this is the way it is. So far you've only proven me correct. 