We're dealing with a jury. If someone wakes up in the morning and decides "I hate peanut butter therefore I'm going to vote guilty" that's fine and dandy.
I do not agree, one time and I believe the Judge knew he prematurely blew up at him.
Only one asked about taking jury instructions home.
I understand, but while a Jury can say a published law does not apply in that case, they cannot create a new law to apply guilt.
The prosecution can appeal to a higher court, which is standard procedure when a mistrial with prejudice is declared by any judge. Then everything that he did is scrutinized. Which is why it's almost never used.
And you’re certain it isn’t the foreman?
No! they cannot!
Sorry Longview. I don't know where you get your info, but I looked it up.
If jeopardy is attached to a mistrial, the case is done, it cannot be retried.
As I just said, they don't have to consider the law at all. There is no penalty for a juror that completely ignores the law and decides based on ANYTHING.
I have no idea which juror it is. The judge said something about "she asked" which would indicate that it's one juror and that it's a female juror.
We're both right. The case cannot be retried, but it can be appealed to a higher court.
What would be the purpose of the appeal if the outcome cannot be changed?
Unless I'm very much mistaken, if the jury comes back with a decision on one or more charges that decision can be appealed. If the jury ends up undecided on one or more charges those charges can be retried and then, if a decision is rendered, that decision can be appealed. If the judge approves the motion for mistrial without prejudice then the entire case can be retried. If he approves a mistrial WITH prejudice then everything is done and there can be no appeal or retrial.
Speculation and assumption.
Kinda like he thinks one person is holding it all up
Also none of us have any idea what the jury is or is not doing, but there’s been a lot of posters who have assumed
A woman asked for jury instructions, that says nothing to what you guys are assuming.
It's the judge's mistrial with prejudice that gets appealed. If successful, Kyle can be tried again.
I think it was Andrew Branca, not 100%, who said that if there are threats made against nonfederal judges will sometimes be asked or offer to come to assist with security. The question was how could this rumor be true and that was the answer. I'll take their word for it over someone who can't read a statute.
How so?
No big deal. It's an argument about nothing, as are many of the arguments she gloms on to.
