Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert H. Risch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:01:46 GMT, John Husvar
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Just a question--
>>
>>Whatever one might wish to call it; jury nullification, jury veto, jury 
>>pardon, jury stupidity, jury wisdom, or jury whatdaheck, Isn't it true 
>>that a jury in a criminal trial can present a verdict of Not Guilty for 
>>any reason or none without explanation?
>>
>>If anybody _would_ ask, the best answer would seem to be: "I just think 
>>the prosecution did not prove its case."
>>
>>Whatever any instructions to the jury, a jury's Not Guilty verdict 
>>stands, doesn't it?
>
>In countries, having "no double jeopardy" in their legal system, the
>answer is yes.  However in the US, this must be qualified.   
>
>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.

Not exactly.  SAlthough not technically double jeopardy, most states have
rules that all charges arising from the same criminal act or transaction
must be charged at the same time, absent a compelling reason ( like newly
discovered evidence after the first trial).

>2.  Another state or the federal government can try him again if they
>have a statute that covers the same criminal behavior.  (Sgt. Koons,
>Terry Nichols, etc.)