Page 1 of 1
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:01 pm
by Malcolm
A new break in the OJ case. Yes, that OJ.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:27 pm
by TPRJones
Doesn't really mean anything, the chain of evidence there is nonexistent. Plus there's also double-jeopardy.
Edited By TPRJones on 1457116093
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:31 pm
by Malcolm
TPRJones wrote: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.
Edited By Malcolm on 1457117852
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:42 pm
by TheCatt
Malcolm wrote:TPRJones wrote: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: Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:56 pm
by TPRJones
Are you sure? It seems to go against what I thought the law was, which is in agreement on that point with wikipedia.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:58 pm
by Malcolm
TPRJones wrote: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.
Edited By Malcolm on 1457117959
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:53 pm
by TPRJones
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: Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:05 pm
by Malcolm
TPRJones wrote: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.
Edited By Malcolm on 1457122251
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:20 pm
by TPRJones
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: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:22 pm
by Malcolm
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: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:24 pm
by TPRJones
I never said I wanted it this way, just that this is the way it is. So far you've only proven me correct. :p