Timeline for Will a Rittenhouse conviction on lesser charges prevent any future retrial on higher charges?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2021 at 16:23 | comment | added | Neil Meyer | Should the quoted wiki passage not be better by saying a hung jury does not imply guilt or non-guilt? Trails don't give out verdicts of innocence. Nitpick of the wiki you quote not your answer. | |
| Nov 23, 2021 at 6:20 | vote | accept | bobuhito | ||
| Nov 18, 2021 at 7:44 | comment | added | phoog | @Accumulation I don't believe that the jury can ignore the charged offense. That is, that they have to return a verdict on the charged offense or report their lack of unanimity, regardless of whether they reach a verdict on a lesser charge. I am not certain of that, as I don't know Wisconsin's rules of criminal procedure, but I can't imagine how it would work otherwise. | |
| Nov 18, 2021 at 6:00 | comment | added | Acccumulation | Are you saying that a trier of fact's declaration that the defendant is guilty of a lesser included offense also constitutes a declaration that they are not guilty of the greater charge? If any jury members believes the defendant is guilty of the greater charge, they should vote not guilty on the lesser charge? | |
| Nov 16, 2021 at 6:37 | comment | added | bobuhito | @zibadawatimmy I believe Manafort can still be retried on all of the hung charges, so your example doesn't work. Manafort's case had "separable charges", but I'm asking about "charges for different degrees of malice". Is there any precedent for my example where someone was found guilty of the lesser charge, with a mistrial declared on the higher charge, and then later eventually retried for the higher charge? It seems philosophically that we should allow this, but phoog says we don't. | |
| Nov 16, 2021 at 6:10 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @bobuhito Quite recently, as an example, a juror on Manafort's trial said that there was a single holdout in the jury that prevented him from being convicted on every charge. And that was just the way it had to be. He was convicted on some, and a hung jury on the remaining. | |
| Nov 16, 2021 at 6:09 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @bobuhito Random holdout jurors are just part of the risk taken in a unanimous jury system. I think there are only very specific cases where the holdout can be coerced by anything other than the peer pressure of the other jurors. Some jurisdictions may have regulations on jury nullification, and it may be possible for a jury to report a holdout is expressly trying to invoke that and get the juror removed. "Refusal to deliberate" is often a valid cause to remove a juror mid-deliberations at the federal level. Even then it's a drastic action to take. | |
| Nov 15, 2021 at 16:54 | comment | added | bobuhito | OK, you're saying that there can be no retrial "if he is found guilty on a lesser charge". That answers my question, but what if one juror strongly feels that he is guilty of the higher charge and does not want to settle like this? Can that juror cause a complete mistrial (i.e., effectively cause a hung jury on both lesser and higher charges) by "all-or-nothing holding out" for the higher charge? | |
| Nov 15, 2021 at 14:16 | history | edited | phoog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 283 characters in body
|
| Nov 15, 2021 at 14:11 | history | answered | phoog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |