Double Jeopardy pt 2

[00:00:01] Hey everyone welcome back to Historical Quarrels, I am your host Tyler Eckhardt We are continuing where we left off from Double Jeopardy a couple weeks ago. Sorry about last week. Just got busy But I hope you guys ready for the Awesome, I guess kind of finale

[00:00:19] This episode that we're doing on Double Jeopardy and all the suits that have been done. It's gonna be a good one Let's get right into it now You are listening to Historical Quarrels So in 1971 we have the case of United States v. Jorn which involved George

[00:00:42] Jorn, say that five times fast, who was charged with aiding and assisting in the preparation of fraudulent income tax returns During the initial trial the presiding judge concerned that the government's witnesses might incriminate themselves without proper legal representation

[00:00:57] Declared a mistrial without consulting the defense or considering their objections Jorn's defense attorney argued that a retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment as the mistrial was declared without a manifest necessary and over the defendant's objections

[00:01:17] The defense maintained that Jorn should not be subjected to the burden of a new trial due to the judge's unilateral decision to declare a mistrial And the prosecution represented by US Attorney's Office argued that the mistrial was necessary to protect the rights of the witnesses and to

[00:01:32] Ensure a fair trial they contended that the judge's decision was made in good faith and that the retrial was justified under the circumstances and so The Supreme Court with Chief Justice Warren E. Berger presiding reviewed the case The evidence against Jorn include testimonies and documents and

[00:01:51] Decading his involvement in preparing fraudulent fraudulent tax returns the key legal question was whether the mistrial declared by the judge Constituted a manifest Necessity that would justify a retrial without violating the Double Jeopardy clause and in a six to three decision

[00:02:10] The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jorn Holding that a that retrial after a mistrial declared over the defendant's objections can violate the Double Jeopardy clause Unless there is a manifest necessity

[00:02:24] Justice Harlan writing for the majority emphasized that the judge's decision to declare mistrial must be carefully scrutinized and justified by an urgent Necessity the court found that in Jorn's case the mistrial was not justified by a manifest

[00:02:39] Necessity and thus a retrial would have violated the Double Jeopardy protections which I'm kind of like up in the air about right because they were they're trying to protect some of the witnesses from essentially

[00:02:57] incriminating themselves and so there they were worried about that and needed a bit more time there and But at the same time, I feel like there is kind of a point. It's like well if you're

[00:03:09] If the prosecution fucked up and you guys are realizing oh shit these witnesses might You know cause some issues not just for themselves, but like also for us because of that Then I don't know you should have done your homework before prosecuting maybe

[00:03:28] There's no detailed public record indicating that George Jorn went on to commit other crimes or was caught for something else after this case so in 1976 We have the United States v. Denitz which involved William Denitz Who's charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs drug dealer how dare he?

[00:03:49] Distributing all those drugs during his trial Dins is the Denitz's defense attorney made an improper remark during the opening statement Leading the trial judge to expel the attorney from the courtroom Based with this situation Denitz requested a mistrial which the judge granted

[00:04:09] Which you know this would lead into the next defense attorney trying to Say that it was double jeopardy at this point because the read because it was declared a mistrial However in a 72 Decision the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the prosecution duh

[00:04:30] Because the mistrial is requested by the defendant and so it's like you know You're the one who wanted to declare it a mistrial for you not having a Judge and then we granted you a judge for the next trial. Sorry, I judge an attorney

[00:04:44] And they granted him an attorney for the next trial so And then we have United States in 1978 The Wheeler which involved Richard Wheeler a member of the Navajo Nation who was prosecuted by the Navajo Tribal Court

[00:05:01] For disorderly conduct after reserving his sentence Wheeler was then indicted by federal authorities For statutory rape based on the same incident leading to a legal challenge over whether this constituted double jeopardy Wheeler's defense attorney argued that prosecuting him in federal court after his conviction

[00:05:20] And the Tribal Court violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment They maintain that since both Prosecutions were for the same conduct Wheeler should not be subject subjected to multiple punishments by different sovereigns which I mean Yeah, but

[00:05:39] At the same time this guy is a rapist and so well a statutory. So he's a pedophile And so I'm kind of like I don't really care too much if he gets fucked over by multiple people and then

[00:05:55] Then a 6-3 decision Supreme Court ruled in favor the prof prosecution refirming the dual sovereignty doctrine meaning that the Tribal nations are separate sovereigns that predate the Constitution and thus possess inherent powers of self-government so

[00:06:11] Prosecutions by Tribal and federal authorities for the same con conduct do not constitute double jeopardy The court emphasized that each sovereign has the right to enforce its laws independently. So Essentially like even if you're on tribal ground the federal government could still get you for the same crime

[00:06:28] Even if the tribal authorities also get you for that crime. So you could definitely Serve double double the sentencing there So and then in 1982 we have the case of organ The Kennedy that addressed the issue of whether a retrial following a mistrial

[00:06:48] Requested by the defendant is barred by the double jeopardy clause if the mistrial was provoked by prosecutorial misconduct The defendant Stephen Kennedy was on trial for theft and during the trial the prosecutor made an improper remark

[00:07:02] Implying that a key defense witness had a prior criminal record and Kennedy's defense attorney Immediately requested a mistrial arguing that the prosecutors comment was highly pre Prejudice prejudicial and designed to provoke and designed to provoke the mistrial

[00:07:21] The trial judge granted the mistrial and the prosecution sought to retry Kennedy and they can it Kennedy's defense attorney Argued that the retrial would violate the double jeopardy clause. So here you go guys

[00:07:31] Listen, you get into trouble for some theft all you have to do is really piss off the prosecution and get them to fuck up and slip up right and so Because because in a nine to zero decision

[00:07:46] Supreme Court ruled that a that retrial after a mistrial requested by the defendant is only barred if the mistrial is provoked by prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke the mistrial and so Justice Lewis Powell writing for the majority held that double jeopardy

[00:08:00] protections apply in such cases in such cases Only when the prosecutor prosecutorial misconduct was intended to go the defendant into requesting a mistrial and So The ruling established important precedent by clarifying the retryals are or generally permissible

[00:08:17] One of his trials requested by the defense accepting cases where the mistrial was intentionally provoked Like it was here. So if you get them to intentionally provoke it, you know

[00:08:26] They're thinking they're gonna do some big brain play you can then get yourself into double jeopardy and get out of it Okay Now we're finally here 1997 we have the OJ Simpson

[00:08:41] Civil trial so after acquittal in criminal trial Simpson would be found liable in a civil wrongful death lawsuit This is the most famous one so In 1997 OJ Simpson faced a civil wrongful death lawsuit following as acquittal in the criminal trial for the murders of his ex-wife

[00:08:59] Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman Despite his acquittal in the criminal case in 1995 the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman saw justice through a civil lawsuit seeking damages for wrongful death The plaintiffs represented by attorneys Daniel, but Petro celli and Peter Galvin

[00:09:23] Presented compelling evidence during the civil trial this included DNA analysis linking Simpson to the crime scene blood samples and testimonies regarding symptoms behavior The defense led by attorney Robert Baker argued that the evidence was unreliable citing alleged mishandling and contamination

[00:09:39] Judge Hiroshi Fuji sake presided over the trial where the standard of proof was lower than in the criminal trial And on February 5th 1997 the jury found OJ Simpson liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman awarding the plaintiffs 33.5 million in comp Compensatory and punitive damages

[00:10:01] And then following the civil trial OJ Simpson faced further legal issues in 2001 He was arrested in Miami for speeding through the Through a manatee protection zone and for having an invalid drivers license

[00:10:16] In 2007 Simpson was involved in a robbery at loss at a Las Vegas hotel where he attempted to achieve sports memorabilia He claimed long time The this incident led to charges of armed robbery armed robbery and kidnapping and then in 2008

[00:10:32] Simpson was convicted and sentenced to 33 years in prison with eligibility for parole after nine years He was granted parole in 2017 and released later that year So I mean he did serve prison time for you know, maybe now for killing but for doing a bunch of other shit

[00:10:50] His life kind of took it downward spiral for sure and this essentially suing our Trying to go after I'm trying to go after him for compensatory damages For the wrongful deaths was another way around the double chipperty doctrine here that

[00:11:15] The family's legal team was able to do and so The burden of proof though was lower that should be noted. It was a little bit lower and So that's another reason why I don't know there's a lot to say here

[00:11:32] There's a lot here to long to talk about with this case in particular I feel like it deserves its own episode But I just wanted to briefly go over it and you know say this is this is another way around double jeopardy doctrine here

[00:11:46] And in 2004 we have United States of Elara so This address the issue of whether the federal government could prosecuted defended after a tribal court had already exercised its jurisdiction over the same conduct This would be again

[00:12:03] Another trial similar to earlier, but this time it was not for statutory rape charges At least from what I found He's a tribe to use initially charged with in tribal court with assaults wing a federal officer So that's that's what you do this in trouble for

[00:12:25] And then in 72 decision the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the prosecution still Reaffirming that yes, even if they you know get in trouble the tribal court the federal court could still prosecute them as well Making them essentially serve double sentencing there Okay, and then in 2005

[00:12:44] Michael Jackson would face civil lawsuits following his acquittal in a high-profile criminal trial for child molestation charges In the criminal trial Jackson was accused of molesting 13 year old Gavin Arvizo at his Neverland Ranch the trial which took place in Santa Barbara County Superior Court

[00:13:01] Received extensive media coverage and ended with Jackson's acquittal on all charges on June 13th 2005 the jury found that the prosecution had not proven the allegations beyond reasonable doubt Despite the acquittal Jackson continued to face civil lawsuits related to similar accusations

[00:13:18] These civil cases often have a lower standard of proof known as the ponderance of the of the evidence meaning it is more likely Then not that the defendant committed the act the lower standard makes it possible for plaintiffs to win civil cases even after a criminal acquittal

[00:13:35] One notable civil settlement involved a case from 1993 Where Jackson was accused of sexually abusing 13 year old Jordan Chandler Jackson settled the case out of court for reported $15 million although he maintained his innocence and claimed that the settlement was made to avoid protracted a

[00:13:52] protracted legal battle and further damages and further damages reputation And the aftermath of the 2005 criminal trial Jackson faced additional civil suits in such case a former employer employee of Neverland Ranch sued Jackson claiming wrongful termination and emotional distress

[00:14:10] Jackson settled this lawsuit to end others to avoid further legal complications and public scrutiny You know, he's probably sick and fucking tired of People going after him But if you did molest those kids, I don't blame the parents for going after him

[00:14:25] Jackson's defense team in the criminal trial included prominent attorneys Thomas Misaru and Susan you who argued Meza meza row Meza row sorry and Susan you who argued that the charges were part of an excerpt Extortion attempt by the art of diesel family

[00:14:43] They presented evidence and witnesses to challenge the credibility of the accusers and highlight the inconsistencies in their testimonies which I mean Inconsistencies and testimonies I need to look a little more into it, but Sometimes it's like their kids. They they have a habit of misremembering things and

[00:15:04] Even then it's like when when you are traumatized at that young of an age You're gonna have a hard time because your brain does everything it can to protect We'll do everything it can to protect you from that and it'll distort things. They'll turn

[00:15:19] People into like shadow monsters. There's a bunch of shit that can happen in a child's mind what they're traumatized And so of course their testimonies are gonna change but again

[00:15:28] I need to look a little more into it to determine that probably deserves its own episode to be honest doing like a deep dive Into all this and then I can determine. Ah, okay. Yes, Michael Jackson did it or

[00:15:40] It's up in there. Yeah, but he would continue to face legal challenges and public scrutiny until his death in 2009 and so Michael Jackson would have a very complex legacy because of that and then in 2011 we have Casey Anthony Oh this bitch this fucking bitch Casey Anthony faced several

[00:16:06] Civil lawsuits following her high profile quiddle in the criminal trial for the murder of her two-year-old daughter Kaylee Anthony the criminal trial Which took place in Orlando, Florida ended on July 5th 2011 with Anthony being found not guilty of first-degree murder somehow

[00:16:22] Or aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child She was however convicted on four counts of providing false information to law enforcement Which? Man, I'm still pissed about this. There's no fucking way she did not do it

[00:16:42] This is about as bad as OJ Simpson, right? They're like you 100% know OJ Simpson fucking killed his wife Same thing here. Okay One of the most notable civil suits was filed by Zanaida Gonzalez who claimed that Casey Anthony had defamed her during the investigation into Kaylee's disappearance

[00:17:02] Anthony falsely told police that a babysitter named Zanny the nanny whose full name was Zanaida Fernandez Gonzalez had kidnapped Kaylee Gonzalez who had no connection to the case argued that these false statements damaged her reputation and led to significant personal and financial harm

[00:17:22] The lawsuit sought damages for defamation and the legal battle continued for several years and in 2015 a judge ruled in favor of Anthony stating that there wasn't there was insufficient evidence that Anthony statements were made with malicious intent to harm Gonzalez. I Okay, sure

[00:17:40] Maybe she didn't purposely do it to fuck her over But when she did did fuck her over and so I don't know how she won this legal battle I swear to God she has to have some like

[00:17:53] Insider connection to judges here to be getting off the way she has been it's Ridiculous absolutely ridiculous Okay And then there was a civil suit for investigation costs the Texas Accu-search a nonprofit search and recovery organization sued Anthony to recover the cost they incurred while searching for Kaylee

[00:18:16] Based on the premise that Anthony knew her daughter was already dead The organization argued that Anthony's false information led them on a futile search causing them to expend significant resources The case was settled out of court in 2013 for an undisclosed amount

[00:18:32] So, you know she she paid paid them Okay, and then Roy Cronk the meter reader who discovered Kaylee's remains also filed the lawsuit against Anthony claiming that her defense

[00:18:43] teams accusations against him during the trial had defamed him and these defense team had insinuated that Cronk might have been involved In placing Kaylee's remains to collect the reward money and the lawsuit was also resolved out of court. Oh Man, I hate this bitch. I

[00:19:02] fucking hate this bitch The fact that like she has not suffered Enough in my opinion for what she did to her daughter Or even even then the blatant negligence that she had that caused her daughter's death if she didn't do it

[00:19:18] Still oh my god, I do not know how I get being a parent is hard. It is difficult Okay being a single mom is difficult Man that bitch there there there No words to describe my my fucking hatred for her. I I hope to God

[00:19:42] Some some evidence eventually comes out like that is just completely damning damning to the point or even after her acquittal Something like they're allowed to like fucking go back and be like no this shit needs to get reopened. I Don't know. I don't know man

[00:20:01] There should be some exceptions made for the double jeopardy law and she is one of them. Oh, oh Hate her hate her so much Oh Okay Moving on I will do a full episode on this bit on that bitch later like I'm not kidding

[00:20:19] I'm gonna do a full Casey Anthony deep dive Going into it. Just talk about just like how There's no way she didn't fucking kill her daughter. There's there's absolutely 0% chance but That's for another time. Okay in 2012 we have blueford

[00:20:37] V Arkansas so the case of blueford v. Arkansas dealt with the issue of whether a retrial on lesser charges is permissible When a jury hangs on those charges, but acquits the defendant on more serious charges Provided the acquittal was not formalized

[00:20:52] The defendant Alex blueford was charged with capital murder first-degree murder manslaughter and negligent homicide in connection With the death of his girlfriend's one year old son during blueford's trial The jury reported to the judge That it was unanimous against guilt on the charges of capital and first-degree murder

[00:21:13] But deadlocked on the lesser charges of manslaughter and negligent homicide The judge declared that a mistrial without formally recording the jury's unanimous decision on the more serious charges The prosecution sought to retry blueford on all charges indicating including the more serious ones

[00:21:31] blueford's defense attorney argued that retrying him on the charges capital first-degree murder would violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment And then the prosecution represented by Arkansas attorney general Dustin McDaniel argued that since the jury did not formally acquit

[00:21:48] Blueford on the more serious charges that and a mistrial was declared the state should be allowed to retry him on all charges They maintain that the double jeopardy protections did not apply because there was no formal verdict of acquittal

[00:22:00] This is this is some 4d chess going on here, right? and Then a 63 decision the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the prosecution Holding that retrial on lesser charges is permissible if the jury hangs on all the on those charges

[00:22:17] But acquits on more serious ones provided the acquittal was not formalized and because it wasn't formalized They're able to retry And Go on and find him guilty and then in 2013 Evans v. Michigan and

[00:22:35] This was addressed the issue of whether a mistake in acquittal due to the trial judges error bars retrial under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment The defendant Lamar Evans was charged with arson for allegedly burning down a vacant house in Detroit, Michigan

[00:22:50] During the trial the judge erroneously required the prosecution to prove that the burned building was not a dwelling A fact that that was not an element of the charge of defense under Michigan law Based on this incorrect requirement

[00:23:03] The judge directed a verdict of acquittal after the prosecution failed to provide evidence of the non-dwelling status of the building The state appealed arguing the judges error did not preclude Did not preclude a retrial Because the acquittal was based on an illegal mistake

[00:23:20] Evans defense attorney argued that retrying them would violate double jeopardy, of course and In an eight to one decision the supreme court ruled in favor of Evans holding holding that a mistake in acquittal due to a trial judge's error

[00:23:34] bars retrial under the double jeopardy clause so if a judge fucks up you're good guys That's the way to get get went with burning down a house Way to be And in 2016 we have Bravo Fernandez v. United States now

[00:23:54] This this one was to see if double jeopardy clause allows for a retrial when a jury returns irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts and the convictions are overturned on appeal Uh, so the defendants won Bravo Fernandez and Hector Martinez Maldonado

[00:24:12] Were convicted in federal court of bribery conspiracy and traveling in interstate commerce To carry out the bribery However, the jury acquitted them Violating the trial travel act an acquittal that seemed inconsistent with their other convictions

[00:24:29] Bravo Fernandez and Martinez Maldonado's convictions were later overturned on appeal due to improper jury instructions The key issue was whether the government could retry them on the overturned charges Given that the jury's acquittal on one account appeared inconsistent with its guilty verdicts on the related counts and so

[00:24:51] in a unanimous decision the supreme court would rule in favor of the prosecution allowing for the retrial and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing for the court held that The double jeopardy clause does not preclude retrial when a jury returns irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts

[00:25:09] So if the jury is just fucking stupid Uh, then then they can retry you okay Uh and the convictions are later overturned on appeal so This uh this ruling clarified the double jeopardy clause permits retrial in cases where procedural errors invalidate prior convictions

[00:25:27] Even if the jury's initial verdicts were inconsistent Um, yeah Good good to know it's definitely good to know if if the jury is fucking stupid You can get retried and they'll they'll find a new jury essentially which I think is kind of

[00:25:44] I know that can get a little iffy there, but it is under very specific circumstances at the very least Okay, then we have port Puerto Rico Vicentio Svale. Okay this uh

[00:25:57] This is addressed whether Puerto Puerto Rico and the federal government are separate sovereigns for the purposes of the double jeopardy clause Which they would go on to find that Puerto Rico and the federal government are not separate sovereigns for the purposes of double jeopardy

[00:26:12] Uh, justice Elena Cangen writing for the majority emphasized that the authority to prosecute in Puerto Rico ultimately derives from the federal government The court held that because Puerto Rico's power to enforce its laws originates from congress

[00:26:25] It does not constitute a separate sovereign entity from the federal government under the dual sovereignty doctrine so That's another way to ensure you don't get double charges. You commit all your crimes to Puerto Rico

[00:26:39] Uh, get get tried there stack the jury get them to acquit you and bam, you're golden go Puerto Rico Uh, that's fucking crazy that that rule works there But it doesn't work in some of the other areas of the u.s. But you know

[00:26:59] And then we have in 2019 the case of gamble v united states This uh addressed whether the double jeopardy clause the fifth amendment prohibits subsequent state to federal prosecutions from the same conduct under the dual sovereignty doctrine and as you all i'm certain are aware by now

[00:27:16] The supreme court reaffirmed the dual sovereignty doctrine here So anytime it is the state and federal government going after you you will get tried twice and you will Fucking burn for it. Basically um And then tribal and federal authorities again a dual sovereignty doctrine and because tribal

[00:27:38] by the tribal council has their own separate sovereignty and their own way of like You know dishing out the press months they could They could punish the same individual twice for the same crime here uh in 2022 and then 2023 we have smith v united states

[00:27:57] Uh, james smith had been convicted of a serious federal offense But the conviction was overturned on appeal due to procedural errors during the trial including improper jury instructions and exclusion of exculpatory evidence The supreme court would rule in favor of the prosecution

[00:28:15] holding the double jeopardy does not bar re child when the conviction is reversed due to procedural errors So, you know, that's that's good here and then last but not least in 2024 we have mc l rath v georgia

[00:28:30] Uh, there's a recent case that further clarified double jeopardy protections after protections after acquittal Okay, the defendant jason mc l rath was acquitted of serious criminal charges related to armed robbery and assault

[00:28:43] In a georgia state court however after his acquittal the state sought to prosecute him for a related but distinct offense Arising for the same incident arguing the new evidence had emerged

[00:28:55] So the prosecution represented by georgia attorney general's office argued that the new charges were based on different elements And the facts that had not been considered in the original trial They maintained that the double jeopardy clause did not apply because of these uh, the new charges

[00:29:09] constituted a separate offense and the emergence of new evidence justified the subsequent prosecution And in a six to three decision the supreme court ruled in favor of mc l rath holding that double jeopardy protections barred the subsequent prosecution

[00:29:24] Justice delana kagan writing for the majority emphasized that once the defendant is acquitted The state cannot circumvent The double jeopardy clause by bringing new charges that are essentially based on the same conduct So You know good. I guess good for him. He got away with that

[00:29:41] Um, or maybe you know, he shouldn't have been tried in the first place um, but that brings us to the end of today's episode Hey everyone, welcome back. Uh, thank you for listening to the last little bit Of uh, what I had written

[00:30:11] I I ended up skipping over a few prominent cases because it started to feel like It was just like a repeat of things Um, and to be very honest with you guys, I have been dog shit tired. I got sick last week

[00:30:26] And it caused a bunch of issues um But uh, I do have an update about this Uh On generate the so there's some Sorry My mind is just all over the place today

[00:30:47] But uh update for double double jeopardy here, uh the plea deals with the January 6th convicts some of their Some of the people charged were Vacated by the supreme court ruling but there is um the Department of Justice school degree and again, this is from Mike Ritz

[00:31:05] Uh listener he updated me here. So I'm just going to read what he told me verbatim already loaded into the text um And he wanted me to check in to see if that was normal, uh, which

[00:31:19] Based off of everything that I was talking about here. Yes, Mike. It is it is absolutely normal um, there are Lots of protections in place for uh double jeopardy clause and lots of ways like after After you essentially served out your sentence

[00:31:33] And if you are vacated from the prison or like let go based off of like a nonviolent offense You are considered to have served your sentence And they cannot retry you again after you've served out your sentence because you've already been convicted and charged and

[00:31:50] essentially you dealt with your prison sentence. So Um, they they cannot be retried again Uh, so Mike. Yes, that is normal. Uh, that happens quite a bit and especially with the recent You know prison prisons getting vacated quite a bit um But yeah

[00:32:12] That's kind of it there. Um Next week we're going to be getting back into a normal swing of things, you know hour and a half two hour long episodes Doing that again Again, sorry for the lackluster

[00:32:26] Uh, a couple of weeks here just trying to get back in the Swing of things. I've also been off my meds for a little bit and oh man I feel like I'm super weird when I'm not my medicine

[00:32:37] Uh hard homies will be coming back as well. I hope next week So, uh look forward to that more deans de shenanigans Uh, if you've been listening to that and enjoying that Uh other than that guys, I don't know. Um, if you like the episode

[00:32:53] Yeah, leave a review share it with a friend. Uh get some more people listen to this We always want to grow the fam here And keep on doing what you've been doing I love you all and I'll see you next Monday with uh some new Some new quarrels

[00:33:10] Bye-bye