Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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

Well, the elements of the crimes are not exactly the same, as between the CA
prosecution of the rogue cop and the prosecution in the federal court for
violation of civil rights.

And you've not answered Risch's question because he has failed to articulate
it.   A little learning is dangerous, as our old friend Pope said.  But now
Risch has had his hand called for stretching it.

On the subject of shooting across a state line, we had such a case, and the
ruling was that either one state or the other state gets to try the shooter,
but not both.   IIRC, the shooter lay in wait and shot his rifle sending a
bullet from NC into Tennessee, killing a person in Tennessee, and the
question was more of venue than jurisdiction.   I don't remember the
reasoning of the court in detail but I think TN got to try the defendant for
murder.   Risch must have the cockeyed idea that TN could first convict him
and then NC could have a go at him too.