• theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    I am going to cross fingers for it, but wouldn’t the state just resue in a higher court?

    I really don’t think that even a dem controlled supreme court would allow it, but a republican one? We will be lucky if Luigi isn’t yahoo-ed

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      5 hours ago

      wouldn’t the state just resue in a higher court?

      No, because the constitution prohibits double jeopardy.

      • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Pls correct me, but you can challenge a ruling for mistrials, can’t you?

        And the higher court decides the legitimacy of the prev ruling, right?

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Jury nullification means acquittal, and you cannot retry someone after acquittal.

          Also prosecutors generally cannot appeal an acquittal.

        • kn33@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Mistrials and appeals only work for a guilty verdict. They aren’t an option for a not guilty verdict.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Assuming the trial results in a hung jury the state can refile the case over and over again - but if the outcome isn’t viewed as a fluke then it’s just a huge waste of money.

          To clarify a hung jury and jury nullification are different things. The most likely outcome is probably a hung jury and I’d rate a non-guilty declaration as more likely than a guilty declaration.