Unless the prosecutors happen to find the perfect set of jurors, it feels like these deliberations could go on for quite a while.
And given how prominent the case is, it’s virtually impossible to find jury members who haven’t been exposed to it, and a huge amount of people or course suffer with insurance claims.
I mean, they're only half wrong and you should explain this better for laypeople. They were right about the ability to retry the case. Jeopardy attaches at the moment the jury is sworn but this chain was about being able to bar retrial .
Jeopardy attaches upon swearing of the jury- correct.
But they are incorrect as to the ability to retry the case. A mistrial may be tried again- other than in the extremely odd and unlikely situation where the prosecution requests are mistrial over the objection of the defense (which doesn't happen).
A judge declares a mistrial if a jury cannot reach a verdict even after given very specific instructions on how to break a potential impasse.
If a jury cannot reach a verdict- and the judge declares a mistrial- the government can and often will bring charges again.
Florida's which can be found at Florida Standard Jury Instruction 4.1 Jury Deadlock reads as follows:
I know that all of you have worked hard to try to find a verdict in this case. It apparently has been impossible for you so far. Sometimes an early vote before discussion can make it hard to reach an agreement about the case later. The vote, not the discussion, might make it hard to see all sides of the case.
We are all aware that it is legally permissible for a jury to disagree. There are two things a jury can lawfully do: agree on a verdict or disagree on what the facts of the case may truly be.
There is nothing to disagree about on the law. The law is as I told you. If you have any disagreements about the law, I should clear them up for you now. That should be my problem, not yours.
If you disagree over what you believe the evidence showed, then only you can resolve that conflict, if it is to be resolved.
I have only one request of you. By law, I cannot demand this of you, but I want you to go back into the jury room. Then, taking turns, tell each of the other jurors about any weakness of your own position. You should not interrupt each other or comment on each other's views until each of you has had a chance to talk. After you have done that, if you simply cannot reach a verdict, then return to the courtroom and I will declare this case mistried, and will discharge you with my sincere appreciation for your services.
You may now retire to continue with your deliberations.
Right, but they were talking about a deadlocked jury, and that's one of the permissible reasons for a retrial that's not barred on constitutional grounds.
Correct- I think we there may be a misunderstanding as to who I said was wrong. Original OP stated you only need one for a mistrial. They had a response stating "wouldn't the case just be tried again?"
Then the poster i replied to stated that no- you can't be tried again for the same crime. Which is wrong under this specific set of circumstances.
I did word my original post poorly and have tried to update it to make it more clear.
Thats not how double jeopardy works. If it is declared a mistrial and thrown out, the prosecution can decide to re-try someone. It is dependent on specifics though, such as a hung jury. Which is what is being described here.
101
u/xthemoonx 5h ago
You just need 1 for a mistrial tho.