On Monday, February 24, 2014 5:12:32 PM UTC-5, 83LowRider wrote:
wrote:



With a hung jury the prosecution can retry as many times as they

want to try. DJ only applies if they are found guilty.



Double jeopardy is when you've been found innocent.


I meant to say "DJ only applies if they are found "not guilty".



Once found innocent of a crime, you cannot be later

charged with that same crime.



Feds could come with a civil rights violation, which would not be

double jeopardy as it would be a court of a different jurisdiction.



It would have to be a different charge entirely.

That isn't exactly true. If a crime exists at both the federal
and state level, they can in fact try you separately for both,
even after you've been acquitted of one.





If he is found innocent

of say murder, he cannot be charged again for that murder. Feds

may try to step in and say there is a civil rights violation, but they

cannot prosecute him for the crime of murder.

In reality, they technically can try someone for the same thing if
there is both a federal and a state law. It's just that DOJ practice
over the years has been to not do that, unless exceptional circumstances
exist. That is rarely done. But it's more common for the feds to do
as you cite, bring a charge after someone is acquitted of a state crime
for a federal civil rights violation. A case they never would have brought
had the person been convicted. But they only
do that selectively as well, depending apparently mostly on your color.
And as I said, it appears pretty close to violating double jeopardy to
me. Anytime you kill someone, you're obviously violating their civil
rights.



OJ was found

guilty in a civil court after his state prosecution whose primary

function is to compensate for losses incurred.



Yes, and that's always been something that doesn't seem quite right.

You could be found not guilty of say murder and then, if you happen to

be the wrong color, the feds could come after you for a civil rights

violation. Sure sounds like double jeopardy there to me.



The OJ example addresses this. Criminal proceedings are meant

to be punitive.... civil cases are to address loss/compensation.

We're talking criminal cases here, not civil.