On Jun 9, 8:26 am, Alan McKenney <alan_mckenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anyway, you're answering the *political/practical* question as to how
> likely it would be that the juror would provide the evidence and the
> legal system would choose to do something.
>
> In my hypothetical, I was trying to raise a *legal* question: if
> there were sufficiently clear evidence that a juror had
> knowingly voted contrary to what he believed to be true --
> i.e., done "jury nullification", *could* (not *would*)
> a prosecutor do anything about it?
Theoretically, the errant juror could be prosecuted for perjury, for knowingly violating his oath as a juror that he had no intention of keeping, i.e. to follow the law as presented by the judge and to "truly judge" the facts of the case in returning a verdict. Instead, he knowingly returned a false verdict.
But IMO the original defendant still could not be re-tried after an acquittal. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy, combined with an actual acquittal and not a mere mistrial, doesn't leave any room for wiggle. As my earlier post stated, the defendant can be re-tried only on a different (non-included) charge, or in a different jurisdiction.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment