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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
From: Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>
Ok, thank you. It's about the history of the Miranda warning.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
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?
out the conviction and ordered a new trial. He was found guilty based on different evidence.
Rick wrote:
From: Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>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
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?
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?
Rick wrote:
From: Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>You can't be prosecuted a second time for the same crime after bring
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?
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?
Rick wrote:
I'm confused. If you look at the first trial, his confession wasFrom: Lothar Frings<Lothar...@gmx.de>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
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?
out the conviction and ordered a new trial. He was found guilty based on
different evidence.
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?
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.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 05:07:43 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:
On 3/12/2021 5:13 AM, Lothar Frings wrote:Is there no element of intent also ?
[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.
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.
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?"
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?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 335 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 149:40:50 |
Calls: | 7,411 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,670 |
Messages: | 5,613,270 |