Reddington Claims The Clancy Mistrial Was Illegitimate

Hey jackass, stop attaching Clancy apologists to all women. While that wasn’t the theme of your Clancy content today, you’ve been in my feed for weeks saying “women this and women that” attaching all of womandom to those dumb ass women. Get your shit together, we’re not all the same

I don't understand at all what you said in the last section of this video. Can you explain in more detail why she cannot be tried again? To a layman, this makes no sense.

It was a mistrial. They can try her again

You’re out of your fucking mind if you think she should not be retried

Biggest scumbag since Avenatti!

Reddington is a sore loser

Thoughts on this one?

Yep, that’s what I said because all these idiots were cheering about this moron who couldn’t follow the law while being a juror and the judge made a fucking mistake and now Lindsay though I think she’s innocent will not be trial so I think it’s hilarious that people are cheering

Are we sure he didn’t follow the law? He said he had doubt, was it reasonable doubt? What was his reason? I can think of one: when she checked the drive time, that’s evidence of clear thinking.

This is fascinating.

So what can they retry her on if not the same charges? Do you think they will?

The problem isn't the jurors or the judge, it's the legal system that allows the insanity defense. The way I see it, if a mother kills her own children, she is infact, insane. Society no longer has any use for her whatsoever. She becomes eligible for life in a prison cell, or to be executed.

The exceptions are historically illegitimate power grabs by judges granting themselves power they were constitutionally prohibited.

not in a mustrial

What is the protocol for jury sequestration?

Did the lone juror listen to the evidence and testimony in court? Did he seek information outside of court? Did he discuss the case during trial with others? Did he then come to a conclusion? Then he did his job. He wasn't required to defend his decision to other jurors.

The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”. The operative Constitutional protection is against being placed in jeopardy twice, not merely against being convicted twice. Once the government formally charges a person, proceeds to trial, and a jury is sworn, the accused has been placed in jeopardy. The government has invoked its prosecutorial power, selected its charges, presented its evidence, and received its opportunity to convince the accused's peers beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution cannot convince the entire jury of guilt, that failure belongs to the prosecution not the accused. A jury that cannot unanimously convict means the government failed to carry the burden it voluntarily undertook when it brought the charge. The accused did not cause that failure merely by defending himself. Nor should the absence of a unanimous verdict of acquittal erase the fact that jeopardy already occurred. The Constitution does not say that a person may be placed in jeopardy repeatedly until the government finally obtains a definitive verdict. It says that a person shall not “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy”. Under that reading, a hung jury does not give the government another bite at the apple. The first trial was the government's opportunity. It chose the charge. It chose to prosecute. It presented its witnesses and evidence. It argued its case to the jury. If, after exercising all of that governmental power, it still could not persuade every juror beyond a reasonable doubt, then it failed to obtain a conviction. The defendant should not bear the consequences of the government's inability to meet its burden by being forced to endure another prosecution for the same offense. The same principle should apply when state and federal governments attempt successive prosecutions arising from the same offense. The Constitution does not say that a person may be placed in jeopardy once by a State and then again by the federal government. It does not create an exception merely because two different governmental jurisdictions claim authority to prosecute. From the perspective of the accused, there is still one government exercising sovereign prosecutorial power under the Constitutional system established by the people. The individual has already been arrested, charged, prosecuted, and placed before a jury for the offense. Allowing another governmental authority to prosecute the same person for the same offense permits precisely what the Double Jeopardy Clause appears on its face to prohibit, being placed in jeopardy twice. If the federal government believes that an offense properly belongs in federal court, it should assert that authority before the State places the accused in jeopardy. The governments may resolve jurisdiction between themselves, but their jurisdictional arrangements should not diminish the Constitutional protection belonging to the individual. The government receives an opportunity to prosecute. It does not receive unlimited opportunities to prosecute until it obtains the result it wants. The Constitutional command is directed at the government, not at the outcome of the first trial. The question, therefore, should not be merely whether the accused was previously convicted or acquitted. The controlling question should be simpler. Was this person already placed in jeopardy for this offense? If the answer is yes, then subjecting that person to another prosecution for the same offense places him in jeopardy a second time. And the text of the Constitution says that shall not be done. Personally, if this defendant were convicted, they should be put under the prison. The prosecution fucked this up, and those children are not getting justice. Actually, that's probably not true. The government will probably get a second bite at this apple, securing a conviction by abrogating the Constitution.

Another idiot commentator.

He found out he was black and changed his whole Clancy stance. This cuck

You mean 11 jurors not upholding their oath.