agreed, just no need for him to slam me and be a dick about it, and when he is wrong not even apoligize, a simple My bad would be ok.
See my above post.
agreed, just no need for him to slam me and be a dick about it, and when he is wrong not even apoligize, a simple My bad would be ok.
See my above post.
agreed, just no need for him to slam me and be a dick about it, and when he is wrong not even apoligize, a simple My bad would be ok.
See my above post.
My comment was when double jeopardy attaches. Clearly she can be tried again but very hard for that to happen. I knew there was a way just didn't know the process but as I mentioned in my post and depeche mentioned in his post EXTREMELY rare instances. Remember I said I would be SHOCKED if she was retried.
My comment was when double jeopardy attaches. Clearly she can be tried again but very hard for that to happen. I knew there was a way just didn't know the process but as I mentioned in my post and depeche mentioned in his post EXTREMELY rare instances. Remember I said I would be SHOCKED if she was retried.
Thanks for the assist Kap. In fairness to madshooter I was just a little annoyed after reading those two back to back comments and probably should not have taken it out on him. I should have known better and just stayed out of this thread as I knew people would just be making general comments because emotions run high in cases like this. I on the other had never rush to judgment because I was not there personally and did not review all the evidence. That being said I was a little surprised by the verdict as a casual observer but never once would I impose my own opinion over that of the jury. BOL!
thank you, water under the bridge.....
Thanks for the assist Kap. In fairness to madshooter I was just a little annoyed after reading those two back to back comments and probably should not have taken it out on him. I should have known better and just stayed out of this thread as I knew people would just be making general comments because emotions run high in cases like this. I on the other had never rush to judgment because I was not there personally and did not review all the evidence. That being said I was a little surprised by the verdict as a casual observer but never once would I impose my own opinion over that of the jury. BOL!
thank you, water under the bridge.....
There were two cases that I recall in criminal proceedure where it occured. Both federal cases. I can pull them out, dust them off and let you know this weekend. I too recall it being a difficult process but it was based on the requests by the prosecution for a mistrial and that the request being denied when it should have been granted which means it should have never went to the jury and therefore a new trial should have been granted. This is an appeal of the discretion of the judge and not the decision of the jury. That was the razor thin distinction. Now what I don't recall is whether polling the jury was relevant to this issue and that is what I found interesting about your post. I often wondered this issue but too lazy to research it. Obviously you poll in the case of a guilty verdict because it has to be unanimous but do you poll in the case of a not guilty verdict and that is where I thought you were going with your post.
There were two cases that I recall in criminal proceedure where it occured. Both federal cases. I can pull them out, dust them off and let you know this weekend. I too recall it being a difficult process but it was based on the requests by the prosecution for a mistrial and that the request being denied when it should have been granted which means it should have never went to the jury and therefore a new trial should have been granted. This is an appeal of the discretion of the judge and not the decision of the jury. That was the razor thin distinction. Now what I don't recall is whether polling the jury was relevant to this issue and that is what I found interesting about your post. I often wondered this issue but too lazy to research it. Obviously you poll in the case of a guilty verdict because it has to be unanimous but do you poll in the case of a not guilty verdict and that is where I thought you were going with your post.
There were two cases that I recall in criminal proceedure where it occured. Both federal cases. I can pull them out, dust them off and let you know this weekend. I too recall it being a difficult process but it was based on the requests by the prosecution for a mistrial and that the request being denied when it should have been granted which means it should have never went to the jury and therefore a new trial should have been granted. This is an appeal of the discretion of the judge and not the decision of the jury. That was the razor thin distinction. Now what I don't recall is whether polling the jury was relevant to this issue and that is what I found interesting about your post. I often wondered this issue but too lazy to research it. Obviously you poll in the case of a guilty verdict because it has to be unanimous but do you poll in the case of a not guilty verdict and that is where I thought you were going with your post.
There were two cases that I recall in criminal proceedure where it occured. Both federal cases. I can pull them out, dust them off and let you know this weekend. I too recall it being a difficult process but it was based on the requests by the prosecution for a mistrial and that the request being denied when it should have been granted which means it should have never went to the jury and therefore a new trial should have been granted. This is an appeal of the discretion of the judge and not the decision of the jury. That was the razor thin distinction. Now what I don't recall is whether polling the jury was relevant to this issue and that is what I found interesting about your post. I often wondered this issue but too lazy to research it. Obviously you poll in the case of a guilty verdict because it has to be unanimous but do you poll in the case of a not guilty verdict and that is where I thought you were going with your post.
See my above post. Again I will have to dig it out to see if I am right. That was my recollection. Also who knows if this is even good law now for all I know. I will get back to you but with my trial tomorrow and Friday it will have to be this weekend.
See my above post. Again I will have to dig it out to see if I am right. That was my recollection. Also who knows if this is even good law now for all I know. I will get back to you but with my trial tomorrow and Friday it will have to be this weekend.
I thought both sides asked for a mistrial about two weeks ago and the judge denied them in both occasions. Either way I will have to locate them later. It was a central case and a companion case from the same Court of Appeals. I am in the 8th Circuit but not sure which Court of Appeals this originated out of.
I thought both sides asked for a mistrial about two weeks ago and the judge denied them in both occasions. Either way I will have to locate them later. It was a central case and a companion case from the same Court of Appeals. I am in the 8th Circuit but not sure which Court of Appeals this originated out of.
See my above post. Again I will have to dig it out to see if I am right. That was my recollection. Also who knows if this is even good law now for all I know. I will get back to you but with my trial tomorrow and Friday it will have to be this weekend.
See my above post. Again I will have to dig it out to see if I am right. That was my recollection. Also who knows if this is even good law now for all I know. I will get back to you but with my trial tomorrow and Friday it will have to be this weekend.
Interesting factual scenerio. Almost every state has laws only allowing you to be married to one person. If the decedent married the surviving spouse prior to ending his nuptuals with the first spouse it is possible (depending upon the state statutes of Illinois I assume since family law is state specific) that his second marriage was an illegal contract, therefore null and void, and consequently he had no legal spouse at the time of his death. Then I would venture to guess that if your state follows the Uniform Probate Code he would follow the laws of descent in your state. Lot of facts that need to be determined before you have your answers but if those fact lay right you might have a hellofa case. BOL with it!
My cases tomorrow are: contested step-parent adoption, Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Motion for Contempt, and Temporary Custody/Visitation/Child Support Trial. The only hearing I have on Friday is a Temporary Custody/Visitation/Child Support trial. Then next week it back to the grind of client conferences all week but at least no trial work. I already had two half day trials this week (yesterday and today). So I enjoy the trial work but yet love to have my breaks from them too. BOL again!
Interesting factual scenerio. Almost every state has laws only allowing you to be married to one person. If the decedent married the surviving spouse prior to ending his nuptuals with the first spouse it is possible (depending upon the state statutes of Illinois I assume since family law is state specific) that his second marriage was an illegal contract, therefore null and void, and consequently he had no legal spouse at the time of his death. Then I would venture to guess that if your state follows the Uniform Probate Code he would follow the laws of descent in your state. Lot of facts that need to be determined before you have your answers but if those fact lay right you might have a hellofa case. BOL with it!
My cases tomorrow are: contested step-parent adoption, Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Motion for Contempt, and Temporary Custody/Visitation/Child Support Trial. The only hearing I have on Friday is a Temporary Custody/Visitation/Child Support trial. Then next week it back to the grind of client conferences all week but at least no trial work. I already had two half day trials this week (yesterday and today). So I enjoy the trial work but yet love to have my breaks from them too. BOL again!
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.