|
Post by Grey on Aug 3, 2009 10:56:17 GMT -6
I have a question about USA appeals: more specifically can prosecutors appeal court decisions?
I was reading the case of the brutal murder of Laurie Show. For those who don't know, she was killed in her home in December of 1991. Three people came to her door, Lisa Lambert, her boyfriend Lawrence (who also raped Laurie previously) and Tabitha (the one who was supposed to kill Laurie).
Tabitha could not kill Laurie so she and Lawrence testified at trial that Lisa was the one who killed Laurie. Lawrence and Tabitha were convicted as accomplices to murder. The county judge found Lisa guilty of murder in the 1st degree. The DP was origionally on the table but taken off and given life due to Lisa being pregnant.
Lisa appealed the decision.
Judge Dalzell was the one who took the case and throughout the trial talked to the defendant when she cried saying "It's OK Lisa, it's OK." Subsequently he found Lisa innocent of 1st degree murder. He also disbarred anyone else from pursuing the case further aka Double jeopardy.
After reading this case, I am appauled by this judges decision. I was wondering if in the USA are prosecutors allowed to appeal decisions such as these ones? Do prosecutors even have a right to appeal?
I also have a question about double jeopardy: I believe it means you cannot try the same person twice with the same crime aka you cannot use the same evidence again if there is a retrial.
I don't know if that is right...maybe someone can clarify.
However, if I were the prosecutor in this case I would fight this judge's decision.
If anyone can answer this for me it would be greatly appreciated. I have already read a few things about it some say they can some say they can't so I would like a stronger answer (if that makes any sense).
Thanks.
--------------------------- For those who don't know the outcome, Laurie's parents moved to get this judge impeached, they signed a petition with 35,000 signatures to create Laurie's Bill which prevents judges from disbarring anyone else to pursue more evidence towards a case.
In the end, another judge Anita overturned Dalzell's decision and Lisa is now in jail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2009 18:52:01 GMT -6
I have a question about USA appeals: more specifically can prosecutors appeal court decisions? You should get Allison's answer on this since she used to be a prosecutor. I believe they can appeal. What grounds would the prosecutor have in the case you mentioned? There has to be grounds for an appeal--it can't be just because the outcome is unpopular.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 4, 2009 14:56:31 GMT -6
A DA can appeal decisions of appellate courts, and they can appeal some decisions of trial judges such as whether certain evidence will be admissible at trial. But once the jury (or a judge in a bench trial) returns a verdict of not guilty, it is game over for the prosecution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2009 19:15:28 GMT -6
A DA can appeal decisions of appellate courts, and they can appeal some decisions of trial judges such as whether certain evidence will be admissible at trial. But once the jury (or a judge in a bench trial) returns a verdict of not guilty, it is game over for the prosecution. And then you have situations I call de facto double jeopardy, such as the Rodney King case. Two of the four LAPD officers found not guilty by the state court were found guilty in federal court and sent to prison. The name of the offense (violation of civil rights) was changed for the federal trial, but that doesn't fool anyone. It is certainly double jeopardy, and was used in the South to go after perpetrators of hate crimes shielded by racist state courts.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 6, 2009 19:21:38 GMT -6
A DA can appeal decisions of appellate courts, and they can appeal some decisions of trial judges such as whether certain evidence will be admissible at trial. But once the jury (or a judge in a bench trial) returns a verdict of not guilty, it is game over for the prosecution. And then you have situations I call de facto double jeopardy, such as the Rodney King case. Two of the four LAPD officers found not guilty by the state court were found guilty in federal court and sent to prison. The name of the offense (violation of civil rights) was changed for the federal trial, but that doesn't fool anyone. It is certainly double jeopardy, and was used in the South to go after perpetrators of hate crimes shielded by racist state courts. Double jeopardy only applies to the same jurisdiction. If the state does not get them, the feds can if the crime is covered by federal law. Indeed, if a POS is acquitted in one state, double jeopardy does not bar him from being tried in any other state that has jurisdiction and venue. It's federalism. But the bar on double jepardy does apply within a state. So if I am aquitted in Milwaukee County, they can't re-try my for the same crime in Waukasha County.
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Oct 6, 2009 19:49:48 GMT -6
A DA can appeal decisions of appellate courts, and they can appeal some decisions of trial judges such as whether certain evidence will be admissible at trial. But once the jury (or a judge in a bench trial) returns a verdict of not guilty, it is game over for the prosecution. And then you have situations I call de facto double jeopardy, such as the Rodney King case. Two of the four LAPD officers found not guilty by the state court were found guilty in federal court and sent to prison. The name of the offense (violation of civil rights) was changed for the federal trial, but that doesn't fool anyone. It is certainly double jeopardy, and was used in the South to go after perpetrators of hate crimes shielded by racist state courts. The dual-sovereignty exception to Double Jeopardy is a long accepted principal in the United States. As more and more crimes are federalized you're seeing it happen more often, however nobody seriously contends that the constitution bars a state and the feds from conducting two separate prosecutions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2009 20:26:48 GMT -6
And then you have situations I call de facto double jeopardy, such as the Rodney King case. Two of the four LAPD officers found not guilty by the state court were found guilty in federal court and sent to prison. The name of the offense (violation of civil rights) was changed for the federal trial, but that doesn't fool anyone. It is certainly double jeopardy, and was used in the South to go after perpetrators of hate crimes shielded by racist state courts. Double jeopardy only applies to the same jurisdiction. If the state does not get them, the feds can if the crime is covered by federal law. Indeed, if a POS is acquitted in one state, double jeopardy does not bar him from being tried in any other state that has jurisdiction and venue. It's federalism. But the bar on double jepardy does apply within a state. So if I am aquitted in Milwaukee County, they can't re-try my for the same crime in Waukasha County. Yes, that's why I used the expression "de facto" in front of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2009 20:30:11 GMT -6
And then you have situations I call de facto double jeopardy, such as the Rodney King case. Two of the four LAPD officers found not guilty by the state court were found guilty in federal court and sent to prison. The name of the offense (violation of civil rights) was changed for the federal trial, but that doesn't fool anyone. It is certainly double jeopardy, and was used in the South to go after perpetrators of hate crimes shielded by racist state courts. The dual-sovereignty exception to Double Jeopardy is a long accepted principal in the United States. As more and more crimes are federalized you're seeing it happen more often, however nobody seriously contends that the constitution bars a state and the feds from conducting two separate prosecutions. Except that they aren't the same crimes on paper, which is another reason I used the expression "de facto." A state will try a murder case. The Federal Goverment, not having jurisdiction in most murders, can try it again, but it's called Violation of Civil Rights instead of murder.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Oct 7, 2009 20:50:01 GMT -6
Different elements makes different offenses. It's not simply a matter of calling it something else.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Oct 8, 2009 1:57:50 GMT -6
So the feds can make a new case if it deems it necessary say to new evidence that is conclusive and overturn a judge or jury decision if it is covered by federal Law. Wow, i wish we had a system like that.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Oct 8, 2009 6:30:38 GMT -6
No.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Oct 8, 2009 7:09:06 GMT -6
Apologies Micky, ive updated the post to make it simpler for you .
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Oct 8, 2009 7:15:22 GMT -6
Still, no. Your post doesn't even make any sense, which is par for you...
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Oct 9, 2009 18:33:21 GMT -6
So the feds can make a new case if it deems it necessary say to new evidence that is conclusive and overturn a judge or jury decision if it is covered by federal Law. Wow, i wish we had a system like that. Yes, but it's very rare for it to actually work like that. Google "Leeander Blake" for an example of a case where the feds stepped in when the state courts totally screwed things up, however most acquittals are final.
|
|