Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:08:13 GMT, Robert H. Risch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 08:44:38 -0700, Jon Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:00:40 -0400, "Larry Smith"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Robert H. Risch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:01:46 GMT, John Husvar
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> 1. The defendant can be tried by the same party that tried him in the
>>>> first place, if they can find another statute covering the same
>>>> criminal behavior but needing the proof of at least one different fact
>>>> in order to establish guilt.
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Another state
>>>
>>>Huh?   Give examples.   I've never heard of this one before.
>>
>>I was about to jump him on this too, but I can conceive of an act that
>>has effects in more than one state that could be regarded as an act in
>>either state.  Shooting across a state line.  Interstate telephone
>>calls.  
>>
>>- Jon Beaver
>
>The sum total of what I know is in:
>
>http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm
>
>I certainly can't supply an example where a virtually identical
>statute was prosecuted by two different states.  However it seems
>possible by:
>
>"However, stretching the bounds of logic, the courts have decided that
>since the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns and
>therefore successive prosecutions based on the same underlying conduct
>do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if the prosecutions are
>brought by separate sovereigns. See, e.g., U.S. v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416,
>1438 (9th Cir.'94)".
>
>If the state and federal government are seperate sovereigns, why
>aren't two individual states?

They are.

- Jon Beaver