• Double Jeopardy Question

    From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 3 06:37:05 2022
    Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent of a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member was bribed
    to influence the verdict? Does it make any difference if the defendant knew about the tampering?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Rick on Fri Jun 3 07:00:24 2022
    On 6/3/2022 6:37 AM, Rick wrote:
    Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent of
    a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member was
    bribed to influence the verdict?  Does it make any difference if the defendant knew about the tampering?

    AFAIK double jeopardy may apply if the defendant had no knowledge of the tampering.

    An Internet search showed a case where the defendant did the
    bribing/tampering and was retried.

    My somewhat faulty memory remembered a "Law and Order" TV show where the defendant was found not-guilty but the mother bribed the judge. In the
    end, the son pleads to the murder if the mother doesn't get charged.
    The judge commits suicide

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/LawAndOrderS6E4Jeopardy

    This is probably a good law school case.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Rick on Fri Jun 3 11:08:32 2022
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

    Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found
    innocent of a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a
    jury member was bribed to influence the verdict? Does it make any
    difference if the defendant knew about the tampering?

    The general rule is that, if a trial was "fixed," the defendant was not
    in jeopardy during that trial. So a second trial wouldn't be double
    jeopardy because there was no first jeopardy.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Roy on Sat Jun 4 05:49:47 2022
    On 6/3/2022 7:00 AM, Roy wrote:
    On 6/3/2022 6:37 AM, Rick wrote:
    Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent
    of a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member
    was bribed to influence the verdict?  Does it make any difference if
    the defendant knew about the tampering?

    AFAIK double jeopardy may apply if the defendant had no knowledge of the tampering.

    An Internet search showed a case where the defendant did the bribing/tampering and was retried.

    My somewhat faulty memory remembered a "Law and Order" TV show where the defendant was found not-guilty but the mother bribed the judge. In the
    end, the son pleads to the murder if the mother doesn't get charged. The judge commits suicide

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/LawAndOrderS6E4Jeopardy

    This is probably a good law school case.

    Yeah, sounds like fun for moot court.



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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Sat Jun 4 05:49:17 2022
    On 6/3/2022 6:37 AM, Rick wrote:
    Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent of
    a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member was
    bribed to influence the verdict?  Does it make any difference if the defendant knew about the tampering?

    The only decision I'm aware of was one where the defendant had bribed
    the judge. A higher court ruled that the defendant had nto been in
    jeopardy and the therefore could be tried again.

    I suspect the same would apply to bribing the entire jury. I'm not sure
    what an appellate court would decide if only one jury member was bribed.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Sat Jun 4 10:10:38 2022
    "Barry Gold" wrote in message news:t7evl8$pmt$1@dont-email.me...

    On 6/3/2022 6:37 AM, Rick wrote:
    Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent of
    a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member was
    bribed to influence the verdict? Does it make any difference if the
    defendant knew about the tampering?

    The only decision I'm aware of was one where the defendant had bribed the >judge. A higher court ruled that the defendant had nto been in jeopardy and >the therefore could be tried again.

    I suspect the same would apply to bribing the entire jury. I'm not sure
    what an appellate court would decide if only one jury member was bribed.


    Would it really matter if just one juror is bribed? I'd envision a case
    where you have a jury voting 11 to 1 for acquittal, but you have one juror holding out who votes guilty. In the absence of tampering, you'd likely
    have a mistrial and possibly a new trial with new evidence, etc. and maybe even a conviction. So bribing the one holdout juror to go along with the
    not guilty could be significant.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Sat Jun 4 10:08:43 2022
    Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
    Roy wrote:
    Rick wrote:

    Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found
    innocent of a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or
    a jury member was bribed to influence the verdict?  Does it
    make any difference if the defendant knew about the tampering?

    AFAIK double jeopardy may apply if the defendant had no knowledge
    of the tampering.

    An Internet search showed a case where the defendant did the
    bribing/tampering and was retried.

    My somewhat faulty memory remembered a "Law and Order" TV show
    where the defendant was found not-guilty but the mother bribed
    the judge. In the end, the son pleads to the murder if the mother
    doesn't get charged. The judge commits suicide

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/LawAndOrderS6E4Jeopar
    dy

    This is probably a good law school case.

    Yeah, sounds like fun for moot court.

    Right. TV shows are often cited in moot (and even trial) court
    briefs.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Rick on Sat Jun 4 11:14:12 2022
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

    Would it really matter if just one juror is bribed? I'd envision
    a case where you have a jury voting 11 to 1 for acquittal, but you
    have one juror holding out who votes guilty. In the absence of
    tampering, you'd likely have a mistrial and possibly a new trial
    with new evidence, etc. and maybe even a conviction. So bribing
    the one holdout juror to go along with the not guilty could be
    significant.

    One hold-out juror wouldn't create a double jeopardy issue. But a
    bribed juror who convinces other jurors who may not have otherwise
    voted the way they did, does implicate double jeopardy.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to montanawolf@outlook.com on Mon Sep 5 23:15:41 2022
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 3 Jun 2022 07:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

    On 6/3/2022 6:37 AM, Rick wrote:
    Does the Double Jeopardy law still hold if a person is found innocent of
    a crime but it is later discovered that the judge or a jury member was
    bribed to influence the verdict? Does it make any difference if the
    defendant knew about the tampering?

    I just read your Law & Order plot descriptino below. It's amazing how interesting it can be. (Of course I had watched this episode so that
    helped to make the text alive.) I had assumed Sorkin was an old man
    with lots of experience. He was a rather young man. How was he able to
    write such complicated plots with so much police work and law, even if
    he got some of it wrong (and even that might have been wrong just to
    make the tv show better)?

    AFAIK double jeopardy may apply if the defendant had no knowledge of the >tampering.

    That's what the episode says at the end.

    An Internet search showed a case where the defendant did the >bribing/tampering and was retried.

    My somewhat faulty memory remembered a "Law and Order" TV show where the >defendant was found not-guilty but the mother bribed the judge. In the
    end, the son pleads to the murder if the mother doesn't get charged.
    The judge commits suicide

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/LawAndOrderS6E4Jeopardy

    This is probably a good law school case.


    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

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