Hello,
I have a question about the legal system of the
USA. Since I'm German I don't know a lot about
this matter. So could someone please tell me whether this
ist the right place to ask and if not, which group
I should rather use?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lothar Frings <Lothar.Frings@gmx.de> wrote:

I have a question about the legal system of the
USA. Since I'm German I don't know a lot about
this matter. So could someone please tell me whether this
ist the right place to ask and if not, which group
I should rather use?

It may depend on exactly what the question is, but yes, this is
generally a good place to ask questions about law in the USA.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Lothar Frings" wrote in message news:304d3fff-adc3-47ab-a57f-2bd013305866n@googlegroups.com...

Hello,
I have a question about the legal system of the
USA. Since I'm German I don't know a lot about
this matter. So could someone please tell me whether this
ist the right place to ask and if not, which group
I should rather use?

This is the right place. Ask whatever questions you have and we will collectively do our best to answer you.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/11/2021 11:36 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Lothar Frings <Lothar.Frings@gmx.de> wrote:

I have a question about the legal system of the
USA. Since I'm German I don't know a lot about
this matter. So could someone please tell me whether this
ist the right place to ask and if not, which group
I should rather use?

It may depend on exactly what the question is, but yes, this is
generally a good place to ask questions about law in the USA.

The OP tried to submit a posting but Google News mangled the header.

Here is the posting:

From: Lothar Frings <Lothar.Frings@gmx.de>


Ok, thank you. It's about the history of the Miranda warning.
I guess the regulars of this ng are familiar with what happened.
Miranda was released, but WP has it that he was accused
for the same case afterwards and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Just his confession could not be used in the trial.
But I heard that no one can be accused for the same crime
twice in the USA. So how was this possible?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From: Lothar Frings <Lothar.Frings@gmx.de>

Ok, thank you. It's about the history of the Miranda warning.
I guess the regulars of this ng are familiar with what happened.
Miranda was released, but WP has it that he was accused
for the same case afterwards and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Just his confession could not be used in the trial.
But I heard that no one can be accused for the same crime
twice in the USA. So how was this possible?

The US Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Miranda. Under US
law, an overturned conviction can be retried.

The confession was not used in the retrial but Miranda was convicted
again.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:s2e296$r59$1@dont-email.me...

On 3/11/2021 11:36 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Lothar Frings <Lothar.Frings@gmx.de> wrote:

I have a question about the legal system of the
USA. Since I'm German I don't know a lot about
this matter. So could someone please tell me whether this
ist the right place to ask and if not, which group
I should rather use?

It may depend on exactly what the question is, but yes, this is
generally a good place to ask questions about law in the USA.

The OP tried to submit a posting but Google News mangled the header.

Here is the posting:

From: Lothar Frings <Lothar.Frings@gmx.de>

Ok, thank you. It's about the history of the Miranda warning.
I guess the regulars of this ng are familiar with what happened.
Miranda was released, but WP has it that he was accused
for the same case afterwards and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Just his confession could not be used in the trial.
But I heard that no one can be accused for the same crime
twice in the USA. So how was this possible?

You can't be prosecuted a second time for the same crime after bring found
not guilty. But the Court didn't find him not guilty. They simply threw
out the conviction and ordered a new trial. He was found guilty based on different evidence. Wikipeida has a decent summary here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona


--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/11/2021 1:32 PM, Roy wrote:

From: Lothar Frings <Lothar.Frings@gmx.de>

Ok, thank you. It's about the history of the Miranda warning.
I guess the regulars of this ng are familiar with what happened.
Miranda was released, but WP has it that he was accused
for the same case afterwards and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Just his confession could not be used in the trial.
But I heard that no one can be accused for the same crime
twice in the USA. So how was this possible?

Nobody can be "placed in jeopardy" more than once. But not everything constitutes "jeopardy" as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The first rule is when "jeopary" starts. The answer is: when a trial
starts. If it's a jury trial, jeopardy "attaches" as soon as the jury is empaneled and sworn in. If it's a bench trial (tried by the judge),
jeopardy "attaches" when the first witness is sworn in or the court unconditionally accepts the defendant's plea.

But if the trial ends in a guilty verdict and the defendant appeals and
the higher court "reverses" the conviciton, then the prior jeopardy is effectively canceled. Why? Because the defendant _asked_ for a retrial
by appealing.

The same thing happens if there is a mistrial. There are basically two
ways this can happen:

1. The prosecution violates the defendant's right to a fair trial (e.g.,
by questions the judge considers prejudicial or by failure to disclose
evidence that would help the defense. In this case, the defense has
asked for the mistrial, so the defendant can be tried again.

2. The jury cannot agree on a verdict ("hung jury"). In that case, the
first trial is not considered to have ended, and the retrial is a
continuation of the "same" trial with a new jury.

Note that a conviction on a lesser charge implies a verdict of "not
guilty" on the greater charges (if any). Assume the defendant was
charged with First degree Murder and the jury brought in a verdict of
"guilty of Manslaughter." That implies that the defendant did not commit
First or Second Degree Murder (or Third, in a few states that have that
crime on the books). If the defendant appeals the manslaughter
conviction and it is reversed, the greater offense (Murder) is no longer available as a charge at the new trial.

Note that the defendant can appeal a guilty verdict, but the prosecution
cannot appeal a not-guilty verdict. There is one exception to this rule:
if the jury brings in a guilty verdict, but the judge overrules the
jury, the prosecution can appeal to have the jury verdict reinstated.

But if the judge grants a "directed verdict" of not-guilty BEFORE the
jury returns with a guilty verdict, that's it. The defendant has been
"in jeopardy" and cannot be retried.

For more details, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#%22Twice_put_in_jeopardy%22


--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rick wrote:

From: Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>

Ok, thank you. It's about the history of the Miranda warning.
I guess the regulars of this ng are familiar with what happened.
Miranda was released, but WP has it that he was accused
for the same case afterwards and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Just his confession could not be used in the trial.
But I heard that no one can be accused for the same crime
twice in the USA. So how was this possible?

You can't be prosecuted a second time for the same crime after bring found not guilty. But the Court didn't find him not guilty. They simply threw
out the conviction and ordered a new trial. He was found guilty based on different evidence.

I'm confused. If you look at the first trial, his confession was
the only "evidence". This evidence was declared void, so
there was no (usable) evidence at all. How was he not declared
not guilty when there was no evidence against him?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/12/2021 6:13 AM, Lothar Frings wrote:

Rick wrote:

From: Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>


Ok, thank you. It's about the history of the Miranda warning.
I guess the regulars of this ng are familiar with what happened.
Miranda was released, but WP has it that he was accused
for the same case afterwards and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Just his confession could not be used in the trial.
But I heard that no one can be accused for the same crime
twice in the USA. So how was this possible?

You can't be prosecuted a second time for the same crime after bring found >> not guilty. But the Court didn't find him not guilty. They simply threw
out the conviction and ordered a new trial. He was found guilty based on
different evidence.

I'm confused. If you look at the first trial, his confession was
the only "evidence". This evidence was declared void, so
there was no (usable) evidence at all. How was he not declared
not guilty when there was no evidence against him?

In a retrial there is no rule preventing other evidence from being
presented. At the second trial, his confession was not introduced into evidence, but he was convicted again, based on testimony given by his
estranged common law wife. There was also evidence from the victim.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Lothar Frings" wrote in message news:6d831640-2518-4e11-bc71-75fec45b6999n@googlegroups.com...

Rick wrote:

From: Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>


Ok, thank you. It's about the history of the Miranda warning.
I guess the regulars of this ng are familiar with what happened.
Miranda was released, but WP has it that he was accused
for the same case afterwards and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Just his confession could not be used in the trial.
But I heard that no one can be accused for the same crime
twice in the USA. So how was this possible?

You can't be prosecuted a second time for the same crime after bring
found
not guilty. But the Court didn't find him not guilty. They simply threw
out the conviction and ordered a new trial. He was found guilty based on
different evidence.

I'm confused. If you look at the first trial, his confession was
the only "evidence". This evidence was declared void, so
there was no (usable) evidence at all. How was he not declared
not guilty when there was no evidence against him?

The Court did not rule that the defendant was not guilty. The court ruled
that the trial itself was invalid and they cancelled the original verdict.
That means the case gets to be re-tried which means the prosecution can now conduct the case differently, introducing new evidence and taking a
different approach.

Think about it this way. The prosecution used a strategy in the first trial that it did not realize was illegal. The court essentially threw the first trial out, so the prosecution got to use a different strategy in the second trial.

It's only when a defendant is actually found not guilty that he is protected from ever being charged again for that exact crime.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/12/2021 5:13 AM, Lothar Frings wrote:

Rick wrote:

From: Lothar Frings<Lothar...@gmx.de>


Ok, thank you. It's about the history of the Miranda warning.
I guess the regulars of this ng are familiar with what happened.
Miranda was released, but WP has it that he was accused
for the same case afterwards and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Just his confession could not be used in the trial.
But I heard that no one can be accused for the same crime
twice in the USA. So how was this possible?

You can't be prosecuted a second time for the same crime after bring found >> not guilty. But the Court didn't find him not guilty. They simply threw
out the conviction and ordered a new trial. He was found guilty based on
different evidence.

I'm confused. If you look at the first trial, his confession was
the only "evidence". This evidence was declared void, so
there was no (usable) evidence at all. How was he not declared
not guilty when there was no evidence against him?

The confession cannot be "the only evidence". AFAIK, all states divide
proof in a criminal trial into two parts:
1. Proof that a crime was committed
2. Proof that the accused was the one (or part of the group) who
committed the crime.

Part 1 must be proved independant of any statements by the defendant.

And if he was convicted at the second trial, I think it's fair to
conclude that there must have been other evidence. Otherwise, any
competent lawyer would have stood up when the Prosecution rested, and
moved to dismiss for lack of a prima-facie case.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 05:07:43 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:

On 3/12/2021 5:13 AM, Lothar Frings wrote:

[quoted text muted]

The confession cannot be "the only evidence". AFAIK, all states divide
proof in a criminal trial into two parts:
1. Proof that a crime was committed 2. Proof that the accused was the
one (or part of the group) who committed the crime.

Is there no element of intent also ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/13/2021 5:28 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 05:07:43 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:

On 3/12/2021 5:13 AM, Lothar Frings wrote:

[quoted text muted]

The confession cannot be "the only evidence". AFAIK, all states divide
proof in a criminal trial into two parts:
1. Proof that a crime was committed 2. Proof that the accused was the
one (or part of the group) who committed the crime.

Is there no element of intent also ?

Not in "strict liability" crimes. But, yes, in most crimes there must be
proof of intent. I'm not sure whether the prosecution has to prove
intent separately from the accused's confession. Never read about a case
where that issue was raised.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rick wrote:

Think about it this way. The prosecution used a strategy in the first trial that it did not realize was illegal. The court essentially threw the first trial out, so the prosecution got to use a different strategy in the second trial.

That sounds to me like "The prosecution did not do their
job right, so they get a second try." Shouldn't that be
"The prosecution did not do their job right, so they lost,
and that's it?"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/15/2021 6:08 AM, Lothar Frings wrote:

Rick wrote:

Think about it this way. The prosecution used a strategy in the first trial >> that it did not realize was illegal. The court essentially threw the first >> trial out, so the prosecution got to use a different strategy in the second >> trial.

That sounds to me like "The prosecution did not do their
job right, so they get a second try." Shouldn't that be
"The prosecution did not do their job right, so they lost,
and that's it?"

In the case of Miranda, the prosecution did their job using the
standards at the time of the case and got a confession. The judge
permitted the confession as evidence. The Supreme Court then changed
the rules.

An officer clocks you car with radar at 20MPH over the speed limit. The
judge then decides that radar is illegal. Is it the officer's fault?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roy wrote:

On 3/15/2021 6:08 AM, Lothar Frings wrote:

Rick wrote:

Think about it this way. The prosecution used a strategy in the first trial
that it did not realize was illegal. The court essentially threw the first >> trial out, so the prosecution got to use a different strategy in the second
trial.

That sounds to me like "The prosecution did not do their
job right, so they get a second try." Shouldn't that be
"The prosecution did not do their job right, so they lost,
and that's it?"

In the case of Miranda, the prosecution did their job using the
standards at the time of the case and got a confession. The judge
permitted the confession as evidence. The Supreme Court then changed
the rules.

An officer clocks you car with radar at 20MPH over the speed limit. The
judge then decides that radar is illegal. Is it the officer's fault?

No, but since there ist nothing else
in the trial, it's my luck. It's also not my
fault that the officer used illegal means.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)