NationStates Jolt Archive

"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," FOX said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."

This isn't from the onion, its from here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229504,00.html


The mind boggles, truly, it boggles.

I know, isn't it?

In fact, if my understanding of the law is right, OJ could publish a book saying "I killed her, I really did. Here's how I did it!" and he couldn't be prosecuted for it; double jeopardy.

What he's actually doing is not a far cry from that. Who really has their wife murdered, and then writes a book about "hypothetically" being the murderer? Fuck.

Who really has their wife murdered, and then writes a book about "hypothetically" being the murderer? Fuck.

A has-been who wants the spotlight again?

He should be put in prison for being an arse.

A has-been who wants the spotlight again?

Yeah. And a guy who killed his wife, got away with it, and now wants to gloat and rake in the cash.

In fact, if my understanding of the law is right, OJ could publish a book saying "I killed her, I really did. Here's how I did it!" and he couldn't be prosecuted for it; double jeopardy.
I'm not sure about that. He can't be charged on the same counts, but I'd think they could get him on new counts, hmm... unless the time limit's up.

...
Just ...

I know, isn't it?

In fact, if my understanding of the law is right, OJ could publish a book saying "I killed her, I really did. Here's how I did it!" and he couldn't be prosecuted for it; double jeopardy.

What he's actually doing is not a far cry from that. Who really has their wife murdered, and then writes a book about "hypothetically" being the murderer? Fuck.
Yeah, I didn't know much about this topic until... well, a quick wiki today, actually. That really shouldn't be legal, should it?

FOX News' Newest Newsworthiness, OJ "I Killed Her" Simpson

"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," FOX said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."

This isn't from the onion, its from here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229504,00.html


The mind boggles, truly, it boggles.So how is this FOX's Fault? all news outlets will report whatever stupid thing stupid people do.

I know, isn't it?

In fact, if my understanding of the law is right, OJ could publish a book saying "I killed her, I really did. Here's how I did it!" and he couldn't be prosecuted for it; double jeopardy.don't think so. because IF O.J. says "I Really did kill that bitch and her friend" then it's acutally a confession of guilt and murder has no statue of limitation.

however, if the prosicution found more evidence, then they couldn't because of Double Jeopardy.



What he's actually doing is not a far cry from that. Who really has their wife murdered, and then writes a book about "hypothetically" being the murderer? Fuck.A has-been who wants the spotlight again?a really stupid Fuck who took one to many tackles in the brainpan...

In fact, if my understanding of the law is right, OJ could publish a book saying "I killed her, I really did. Here's how I did it!" and he couldn't be prosecuted for it; double jeopardy.

I though Double Jeopardy could be pursued in cases where substantial new evidence comes to light (such as: a statement of guilt)

This would almost be funny if he didn't have kids. "Hey, kids, guess what! I'm writing a book about how I -- hypothetically -- murdered your mother!"

And for the record, the folks at Fox are nothing but a bunch of tasteless, sensation-whoring bastards. Everything they do is crap, and everything they touch turns to crap, and if it doesn't turn to crap, they cancel it.

How is his hunt for the real killers going, that's what I'd like to know.


This whole thing smacks of, "I'm an attention whore! Lookatme!lookatme!lookatme! I'll do a little dance, I'll whore myself out to Fox, I'll admit I murdered my wife, just please lookatme!Lookatme!Lookatme!"
That, coupled with a brisk sprinkiling of, "I'm flat broke, and have no morals and thus no qualms about using my wife's murder to make a few dollars."
I wouldn't be surprised if next he digs Nicole up and embarks on a nationwide book-signing tour with her.

...
Just ...


Yeah, I didn't know much about this topic until... well, a quick wiki today, actually. That really shouldn't be legal, should it?

as with everything else... there is a LOOPHOLE.

the state cannot charge him with the murder... but the feds can (if they so choose to.)

So how is this FOX's Fault? all news outlets will report whatever stupid thing stupid people do.

don't think so. because IF O.J. says "I Really did kill that bitch and her friend" then it's acutally a confession of guilt and murder has no statue of limitation.

however, if the prosicution found more evidence, then they couldn't because of Double Jeopardy.



a really stupid Fuck who took one to many tackles in the brainpan...


I hear NBC turned him down when he pitched this interview idea to them. I imagine CNN did the same. Who but FOX would make a 'television event' out of this shit?

Also, he could confess tomorrow but never be convicted, because he was acquitted of the murders. End of story. No double jeopardy in ANY circumstances.

They could try to convict him of some other crime, but what did he do?

And for the record, the folks at Fox are nothing but a bunch of tasteless, sensation-whoring bastards. Everything they do is crap, and everything they touch turns to crap, and if it doesn't turn to crap, they cancel it.
ahh... but you don't see what they're doing. if they can get OJ to confess to the killings, and not as a "What If"... not only is it been witnessed by alot of people, it will also be taped!

ahh... but you don't see what they're doing. if they can get OJ to confess to the killings, and not as a "What If"... not only is it been witnessed by alot of people, it will also be taped!

Again, he could confess tomorrow and get it tattooed on his forehead. Never see a day of jail time.

CNN's been talking about this all day, too.

as with everything else... there is a LOOPHOLE.

the state cannot charge him with the murder... but the feds can (if they so choose to.)
Only if it's a federal crime, and since he didn't cross statelines...

I hear NBC turned him down when he pitched this interview idea to them. I imagine CNN did the same. Who but FOX would make a 'television event' out of this shit?

Also, he could confess tomorrow but never be convicted, because he was acquitted of the murders. End of story. No double jeopardy in ANY circumstances.

They could try to convict him of some other crime, but what did he do?can you name any time that Double Jeopardy was cited and upheld when the person confessed to doing the crime he/she was aquitted? and that confession was witnessed by multiple people as well as taped?

Somehow, I don't think Double Jeopardy would protect anyone should they confesses.

and two. the State Courts aquitted him... not any Federal Court.
also, an appeal with the taped confession may get the aquittal verdict overturned and that would remove the Double Jeopardy sheild from him.

Only if it's a federal crime, and since he didn't cross statelines...
Federal crimes don't need a crossing of state lines.

can you name any time that Double Jeopardy was cited when the person confessed to doing the crime he/she was aquitted?

Somehow, I don't think Double Jeopardy would protect anyone should they confesses.

and two. the State Courts aquitted him... not any Federal Court.
also, an appeal with the taped confession may get the aquittal verdict overturned and that would remove the Double Jeopardy sheild from him.


It protects someone who confesses unequivocally

Acquittal by Jury .--Little or no controversy accompanies the rule that once a jury has acquitted a defendant, government may not, through appeal of the verdict or institution of a new prosecution, place the defendant on trial again. Supp.97.1 Thus, the Court early held that, when the results of a trial are set aside because the first indictment was invalid or for some reason the trial's results were voidable, a judgment of acquittal must nevertheless remain undisturbed. 98

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/04.html#1

There is no recourse for the government if a person is acquitted, save very exotic circumstances such as a case where the judge was bribed. The rationale there was that the first trial, because it was settled by bribery, placed the defendant under no danger of life & limb, since it wasnt a legitimate trial in any sense.

OJ simpson could even, say, produce a video tape of himself killing them to accompany his confession, and still be in no danger at all of prosecution.

It protects someone who confesses unequivocally

Acquittal by Jury .--Little or no controversy accompanies the rule that once a jury has acquitted a defendant, government may not, through appeal of the verdict or institution of a new prosecution, place the defendant on trial again. Supp.97.1 Thus, the Court early held that, when the results of a trial are set aside because the first indictment was invalid or for some reason the trial's results were voidable, a judgment of acquittal must nevertheless remain undisturbed. 98

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/04.html#1
There is no recourse for the government if a person is acquitted, save very exotic circumstances such as a case where the judge was bribed. The rationale there was that the first trial, because it was settled by bribery, placed the defendant under no danger of life & limb, since it wasnt a legitimate trial in any sense.

OJ simpson could even, say, produce a video tape of himself killing them to accompany his confession, and still be in no danger at all of prosecution.
Wow. TBH I don't know much about the legal system, but is anyone else thinking right now that that's perhaps one of the most idiotic things they've ever heard?

Wow. TBH I don't know much about the legal system, but is anyone else thinking right now that that's perhaps one of the most idiotic things they've ever heard?

No, it is absolutely necessary and an integral part of an 800 year old tradition of common law, and written directly into the constitution.

No, the most retarded thing I've ever heard is all the black people cheering when he and Michal Jackson got acquitted because they beat out the white man who's trying to make them all into criminals. If either of those were 100% Cherokee I still wouldn't stand up and cheer if they were acquitted. THAT is ABSOLUTELY RETARDED.

Federal crimes don't need a crossing of state lines.
Some crimes do not, but given the notion that Federal crimes are either named by Congress or have crossed state lines... I don't think that the feds would have jurisdiction here.

ahh... but you don't see what they're doing. if they can get OJ to confess to the killings, and not as a "What If"... not only is it been witnessed by alot of people, it will also be taped!
Doesn't matter -- he's legally immune. Thought I wouldn't be surprised if he was lynched after confessing... with Fox cameras rolling. :rolleyes:

You gotta hand it to OJ, he has managed to get himself aquitted, and now he's able to gloat about how he killed his wife (still looking for the REAL killers though) and get away with it.

Wow.... I guess he got moves on and off the football field.

Doesn't matter -- he's legally immune. Thought I wouldn't be surprised if he was lynched after confessing... with Fox cameras rolling. :rolleyes:

we'll see. there has been removal of the Double Jeopardy protection before. and this is a rather unusual circumstance and depending on what he says on camera...

OJ just may put his foot in his mouth thinking he's safe.

Has anyone read the book? I could write a book saying "If I killed Nicole, this is how I would have done it' and no one would care because it is speculation. Unless he killed them the same way in the book it is really much ado about nothing and you are just giving him and his book free press.

No, the most retarded thing I've ever heard is all the black people cheering when he and Michal Jackson got acquitted because they beat out the white man who's trying to make them all into criminals.
I felt what the most ridiculous thing about that was that the Blacks cheering the decision really hadn't a frigging clue.
It didn't 'prove' that Blacks can beat the justice system.
It merely showed, yet again, that rich people can beat the justice system no matter what crime they're charged with.

we'll see. there has been removal of the Double Jeopardy protection before. and this is a rather unusual circumstance and depending on what he says on camera...

OJ just may put his foot in his mouth thinking he's safe.

I think you need to start citing some cases where there has been 'the removal of double jeopardy protection before,' and quick, because you're deeply factually mistaken about american law.

Has anyone read the book? I could write a book saying "If I killed Nicole, this is how I would have done it' and no one would care because it is speculation. Unless he killed them the same way in the book it is really much ado about nothing and you are just giving him and his book free press.
you could write such a book, but there is one difference between you and O.J. you were not on trial and aquitted for killing Nicole and Ron.

for those who think he's guilty... it can be seen as a confession. for others, it's just tacky and shows poor taste.

You guys do realize Fox News and the Fox network aren't run by the same people except at the very top level, right?

Interestingly enough, Fox NEWS is flaming the hell out of this decision by their own higher-ups. O'Reilly was (rightly) incensed that the Fox network would air this thing.

More from findlaw:

While in other areas of double jeopardy doctrine consideration is given to the public-safety interest in having a criminal trial proceed to an error- free conclusion, no such balancing of interests is permitted with respect to acquittals, ''no matter how erroneous,'' no matter even if they were ''egregiously erroneous.'' 92

"Given the requirements for entry of a judgment of acquittal, to permit a second trial would negate the purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause to forbid a second trial in which the prosecution would be afforded another opportunity to supply evidence that it failed to muster in the first trial."
BURKS v. UNITED STATES, 437 U.S. 1 (1978)


The Court of Appeals thought, not without reason, that the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation. Nevertheless, "[t]he verdict of acquittal was final, and could not be reviewed . . . without putting [the petitioners] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution."
FONG FOO v. UNITED STATES, 369 U.S. 141 (1962)


You are entirely, completely, and unequivocally wrong.

I think you need to start citing some cases where there has been 'the removal of double jeopardy protection before,' and quick, because you're deeply factually mistaken about american law.

glad you asked...

first the Exceptions to Double Jeopardy (Exceptions to double jeopardy).

A legal Blog about a removal of Double Jeopardy (http://nylawblog.typepad.com/suigeneris/2006/10/does_reversal_b.html).

Double Jeopardy Appeal Denied (http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/April_05/04292005_01.asp)

and it won't protect you against some offences.
Probation Violation (http://www.4dca.org/Sept%202006/09-06-06/4D06-2859.op.pdf)

reinstatement of an overturned verdict (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2001/000479-1.htm).

reversal due to Trial Error (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1986/sg860090.txt).

The double jeopardy clause does not preclude retrial in the circumstance in which a second trial arises out of the same judicial proceeding as the first. (http://www.jud10.org/Appeals/Writs/GCG99-0022.htm)

Appeal for Double Jeopardy turned down (http://www.ipsn.org/court_cases/us_vs_carson.htm).



Since we didn't read the book, nor see the interview, we cannot assume that he will confess or not. however, a Confession will cause many a lawyer and judge to review the Double Jeopardy ruling (and there is a way for OJ to be squeezed if he's dumb enough to confess that won't violate DJ.)

glad you asked...

first the Exceptions to Double Jeopardy (Exceptions to double jeopardy).

A legal Blog about a removal of Double Jeopardy (http://nylawblog.typepad.com/suigeneris/2006/10/does_reversal_b.html).

Double Jeopardy Appeal Denied (http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/April_05/04292005_01.asp)

and it won't protect you against some offences.
Probation Violation (http://www.4dca.org/Sept%202006/09-06-06/4D06-2859.op.pdf)

reinstatement of an overturned verdict (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2001/000479-1.htm).

reversal due to Trial Error (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1986/sg860090.txt).

The double jeopardy clause does not preclude retrial in the circumstance in which a second trial arises out of the same judicial proceeding as the first. (http://www.jud10.org/Appeals/Writs/GCG99-0022.htm)

Appeal for Double Jeopardy turned down (http://www.ipsn.org/court_cases/us_vs_carson.htm).



Since we didn't read the book, nor see the interview, we cannot assume that he will confess or not. however, a Confession will cause many a lawyer and judge to review the Double Jeopardy ruling (and there is a way for OJ to be squeezed if he's dumb enough to confess that won't violate DJ.)

None of this bears on the OJ case, though, because, as with the cases I cited, he was acquitted by a jury.

As in my post above, exceptions to DJ in a case of acquittal are extremely rare and can be rationalized only in the most exotic circumstances, a confession - which is essentially just 'new evidence' - is absolutely not sufficient.

OJ can certainly be 'squeezed' - and this has already happened, he was found liable for his ex's wrongful death in civil court and made to pay fortunes.

He is, however, absolutely immune from being prosecuted in criminal court for her death, as per the fifth amendment. Acquittal is absolute and final, and it cannot ever be appealed by the prosecution on grounds of new evidence.

Also, I have to wonder what you mean by "a Confession will cause many a lawyer and judge to review the Double Jeopardy ruling." There was no "double jeopardy ruling," it is a matter of clear, explicit, constitutional legal fact that he cannot be prosecuted again.

Wasn't there a case in the 60s, during the civil rights movement in the USA, where the local sherrif murdered a couple of black freedom riders? IIRC, he was aquitted of murder, but later tried by the feds under civil rights charges & found guilty?

I know that's a bit vague, but could a similar thing apply of OJ?

Wow. TBH I don't know much about the legal system, but is anyone else thinking right now that that's perhaps one of the most idiotic things they've ever heard?

No. :)

Wasn't there a case in the 60s, during the civil rights movement in the USA, where the local sherrif murdered a couple of black freedom riders? IIRC, he was aquitted of murder, but later tried by the feds under civil rights charges & found guilty?

I know that's a bit vague, but could a similar thing apply of OJ?

You mean this case?

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/balmur.html

I'm not sure about that. He can't be charged on the same counts, but I'd think they could get him on new counts, hmm... unless the time limit's up.
Actually, I think it isn't Double Jeopardy if there is new evidence brought to light.

"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," FOX said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."

This isn't from the onion, its from here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229504,00.html


The mind boggles, truly, it boggles.

To paraphrase the great Sage - 'I love legitimate Journalism'.

OJ Simpson is a deplorable piece of slithering scum.


To add insult to injury, part of a report I saw stated he was paid 3.5 million for the book.
The report went on to say that he used the proceeds to pay off a home in the state of Florida and the rest to an offshore account-apparently, this move protects his earnings from the 33 million dollar judgement awarded to his victim's family.

He has constantly been behaving badly since he was acquitted of charges as well as participating in very poor taste money making ventures.

I'm looking foward to the day we get to see his end.

None of this bears on the OJ case, though, because, as with the cases I cited, he was acquitted by a jury.I never said it did, I just said there were cases where Double Jeopardy couldn't stop a trial.

As in my post above, exceptions to DJ in a case of acquittal are extremely rare and can be rationalized only in the most exotic circumstances, a confession - which is essentially just 'new evidence' - is absolutely not sufficient.rare, which means IT MIGHT happen, and a Nationwide Taped and Televised Confession is rather Exotic.

OJ can certainly be 'squeezed' - and this has already happened, he was found liable for his ex's wrongful death in civil court and made to pay fortunes. and should he be stupid enough to confess (that is assuming he did) he can be charged with other things as well.

He is, however, absolutely immune from being prosecuted in criminal court for her death, as per the fifth amendment. Acquittal is absolute and final, and it cannot ever be appealed by the prosecution on grounds of new evidence.we'll see. lawyers and judges have pulled shit out before.

Also, I have to wonder what you mean by "a Confession will cause many a lawyer and judge to review the Double Jeopardy ruling." There was no "double jeopardy ruling," it is a matter of clear, explicit, constitutional legal fact that he cannot be prosecuted again.we'll see. after all, this is lawyers we are talking about.

I just hope OJ finds the real killers soon. I'm terrified by the fact that they're still out there somewhere.

I just hope OJ finds the real killers soon. I'm terrified by the fact that they're still out there somewhere.
He'll never find the 'real' killers. He's too busy being stingy and writing stupid books to do that.

Only if it's a federal crime, and since he didn't cross statelines...

actually he did, he flew out of town that night and allegedly disposed on the murder weapon then. Therefore the commission of the crime didn't end when he was in Cali. They can get him in federal as well as with tampering, cover-up, etc. There's lots of crimes he cane be charged with other than murder.

I think you need to start citing some cases where there has been 'the removal of double jeopardy protection before,' and quick, because you're deeply factually mistaken about american law.

The Court's decision consider history, the structure of the Constitution, and prior jurisprudence to decide on the law's constitutionality. Historically, while the federal government was permitted to compel "state judges to enforce federal prescriptions," there is no indication that the federal government was ever allowed to impress the state executives.16

Further, the Constitution "incontestib[ly] . . . established a system of 'dual sovereignty,'"17 under which "the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject . . . to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them."18 In such a system, "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."19

This idea of "double security" would be undermined, said the Court, "if it [the federal government] were able to impress into its service -- and at no cost to itself --the police officers of fifty states."20

Finally, previous case law shows an unwavering stance against the states being compelled to implement federal policy, as manifested in decisions such as EPA v. Brown (1977), FERC v. Mississippi (1982), and New York v. United States (1992). Thus, the provision of the Brady Act which compelled CLEOs to implement background checks was struck down as unconstitutional.

Yet at the same time, the Court declined to rule on the Brady Law as a whole, confining its findings to the particularly problematic provision of compelling CLEOs to administer federal statutes:

"There is involved in this Brady Act conundrum a severability question. . . These are important questions, but we have no business answering them in these cases. These provisions burden only firearms dealers and purchasers, and no plaintiff in either of those categories is before us here. We decline to speculate regarding the rights and obligations of parties not before the Court."21

By leaving the question of the Brady Act's severability (and salvageability) open, the Court made clear that, far from ruling against federal crime law as a whole, this decision was made against one specific clause in one specific law. Thus, although the Printz decision reestablishes limits on what the federal government may do to enforce its criminal code, it does not rule that crime law is outside the federal domain.

But enacting legislation is only one way in which the federal government has sought to "federalize" crime. Another method is bringing federal charges upon criminals in addition to the standard state prosecution, as in the case of the four L.A.P.D. officers acquitted in the state Rodney King beating trial. After a state trial acquitted the officers, the United States Department of Justice decided to file a federal civil suit. The American Civil Liberties Union objected strongly, condemning the federal prosecution as "a violation of double jeopardy."22

In United States v. Lanza, the Supreme Court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause -- "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"23 -- does not preclude federal and state prosecution for the same offense because of the idea that dual sovereignties may have concurrent jurisdiction: "An act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each."24 Subsequent cases involving dual sovereignty such as Herbert v. Louisiana, Abbate v. United States, Bartkus v. Illinois, United States v. Wheeler, and Heath v. Alabama, have all upheld the Lanza decision.

But a conflict between dual sovereignty and double jeopardy presupposes that the prosecutions deal with the same offense, pursuant to the Blockburger test which questions whether one crime "requires proof of a fact which the other does not."25 Clearly, in the case of the L.A.P.D. officers, the charges were substantially different:

"The federal offense required proof of elements beyond the state offense, particularly deprivation of a federally protected right (third federal element) with specific intent (fourth federal element). The state offense also required such distinct proof; to wit, proof of an assault or beating (second state element)."26

Thus, even discarding the dual sovereignty precedent, a retrial of the police was still "entirely proper under prevailing double jeopardy doctrine"27 because federal charges differed from the state's under the Blockburger test.

In addition to the long-standing precedent on the matter, there is a strong public-policy-oriented reason for the dual sovereignty exception to double jeopardy: Double prosecutions have proven instrumental in securing governmental interests. In fact, there is a striking parallel between the King incident and the 1964 murder of Lt. Col. Lemuel Penn. Penn, a black man, was shot and killed by Georgia Ku Klux Klan members who, despite strong evidence to the contrary, were acquitted by the state. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Guest28 allowed the federal government to reprosecute, and the murderers were subsequently convicted. In light of such cases, Heath v. Alabama29 clearly allows governmental interests of justice to outweigh double jeopardy considerations:

"[W]ere a prosecution by a State, however zealously pursued, allowed to preclude further prosecution by the Federal Government for the same crime, an entire range of national interests could be frustrated. The importance of those federal interests has thus quite properly been permitted to trump a defendant's interest in avoiding successive prosecutions or multiple punishments for the same crime."30

Thus, because of jurisprudence regarding the dual sovereignty doctrine, because the charges against the officers were different under the Blockburger test, and because of the policy-related considerations, the retrial of the L.A.P.D. officers in the Rodney King trial was indeed in accordance with constitutional principles.

In conclusion, the recent movement to federalize crime has resulted in such legislation as the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which lacked provisions crucial to establishing constitutionality, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which compelled state officers to implement federal measures. Though the Court struck down both these laws, and while the decisions paved the way for critical inquiry into the constitutionality of other laws, the judicial precedent set is such that there is much room for federal crime legislation, so long as there is a clear link to constitutional principles such as the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. With respect to double prosecutions, the Court has long supported the idea that as dual sovereigns with concurrent jursidiction, both the federal and state governments may prosecute criminals, even for the same offense.

Thus, while case law indicates hostility towards measures which attempt to consolidate federal power at the expense of states, the Court supports proceedings such as double prosecution, wherein federal and state sovereignties remain intact.

That should do quite nicely. And there's no statute of limitations on murder.

He couldn't be tried under double jeopardy, even with a confession. The most he could be tried for is perjury.

English law has just introduced an exemption to allow retrial in cases like this, if very strict requirements are met. The first man was recently convicted in circumstances very similar to the one you've been describing (aquittal, confession, perjury).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5412264.stm

a) I never said it did, I just said there were cases where Double Jeopardy couldn't stop a trial.

b) rare, which means IT MIGHT happen, and a Nationwide Taped and Televised Confession is rather Exotic.

c) and should he be stupid enough to confess (that is assuming he did) he can be charged with other things as well.

D) we'll see. lawyers and judges have pulled shit out before.

E) we'll see. after all, this is lawyers we are talking about.

a) not in circumstances remotely like these though, he was acquitted...

b) not exotic in any sense at all that is relevant to double jeopardy after acquittal...

C) like what?

d) not in any of the links you posted...

e) lawyers and judges constrained by come constitutional legal facts like DJ...

actually he did, he flew out of town that night and allegedly disposed on the murder weapon then. Therefore the commission of the crime didn't end when he was in Cali. They can get him in federal as well as with tampering, cover-up, etc. There's lots of crimes he cane be charged with other than murder.

Wasnt there also a moment,caught on film, before OJ's arrest, where one of his advisors removed a briefcase or some other itme from the crime scene, whilst OJ was standing there talking to police?

I have a vague recollection of that happening, but no proof.

I know, isn't it?

In fact, if my understanding of the law is right, OJ could publish a book saying "I killed her, I really did. Here's how I did it!" and he couldn't be prosecuted for it; double jeopardy.

What he's actually doing is not a far cry from that. Who really has their wife murdered, and then writes a book about "hypothetically" being the murderer? Fuck.

Whislt over here in the UK, we have actualy done away with that law and just a few weeks aga trialed(again) our first criminal under the new law.

The Court's decision consider history, the structure of the Constitution, and prior jurisprudence to decide on the law's constitutionality. Historically, while the federal government was permitted to compel "state judges to enforce federal prescriptions," there is no indication that the federal government was ever allowed to impress the state executives.16

Further, the Constitution "incontestib[ly] . . . established a system of 'dual sovereignty,'"17 under which "the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject . . . to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them."18 In such a system, "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."19

This idea of "double security" would be undermined, said the Court, "if it [the federal government] were able to impress into its service -- and at no cost to itself --the police officers of fifty states."20

Finally, previous case law shows an unwavering stance against the states being compelled to implement federal policy, as manifested in decisions such as EPA v. Brown (1977), FERC v. Mississippi (1982), and New York v. United States (1992). Thus, the provision of the Brady Act which compelled CLEOs to implement background checks was struck down as unconstitutional.

Yet at the same time, the Court declined to rule on the Brady Law as a whole, confining its findings to the particularly problematic provision of compelling CLEOs to administer federal statutes:

"There is involved in this Brady Act conundrum a severability question. . . These are important questions, but we have no business answering them in these cases. These provisions burden only firearms dealers and purchasers, and no plaintiff in either of those categories is before us here. We decline to speculate regarding the rights and obligations of parties not before the Court."21

By leaving the question of the Brady Act's severability (and salvageability) open, the Court made clear that, far from ruling against federal crime law as a whole, this decision was made against one specific clause in one specific law. Thus, although the Printz decision reestablishes limits on what the federal government may do to enforce its criminal code, it does not rule that crime law is outside the federal domain.

But enacting legislation is only one way in which the federal government has sought to "federalize" crime. Another method is bringing federal charges upon criminals in addition to the standard state prosecution, as in the case of the four L.A.P.D. officers acquitted in the state Rodney King beating trial. After a state trial acquitted the officers, the United States Department of Justice decided to file a federal civil suit. The American Civil Liberties Union objected strongly, condemning the federal prosecution as "a violation of double jeopardy."22

In United States v. Lanza, the Supreme Court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause -- "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"23 -- does not preclude federal and state prosecution for the same offense because of the idea that dual sovereignties may have concurrent jurisdiction: "An act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each."24 Subsequent cases involving dual sovereignty such as Herbert v. Louisiana, Abbate v. United States, Bartkus v. Illinois, United States v. Wheeler, and Heath v. Alabama, have all upheld the Lanza decision.

But a conflict between dual sovereignty and double jeopardy presupposes that the prosecutions deal with the same offense, pursuant to the Blockburger test which questions whether one crime "requires proof of a fact which the other does not."25 Clearly, in the case of the L.A.P.D. officers, the charges were substantially different:

"The federal offense required proof of elements beyond the state offense, particularly deprivation of a federally protected right (third federal element) with specific intent (fourth federal element). The state offense also required such distinct proof; to wit, proof of an assault or beating (second state element)."26

Thus, even discarding the dual sovereignty precedent, a retrial of the police was still "entirely proper under prevailing double jeopardy doctrine"27 because federal charges differed from the state's under the Blockburger test.

In addition to the long-standing precedent on the matter, there is a strong public-policy-oriented reason for the dual sovereignty exception to double jeopardy: Double prosecutions have proven instrumental in securing governmental interests. In fact, there is a striking parallel between the King incident and the 1964 murder of Lt. Col. Lemuel Penn. Penn, a black man, was shot and killed by Georgia Ku Klux Klan members who, despite strong evidence to the contrary, were acquitted by the state. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Guest28 allowed the federal government to reprosecute, and the murderers were subsequently convicted. In light of such cases, Heath v. Alabama29 clearly allows governmental interests of justice to outweigh double jeopardy considerations:

"[W]ere a prosecution by a State, however zealously pursued, allowed to preclude further prosecution by the Federal Government for the same crime, an entire range of national interests could be frustrated. The importance of those federal interests has thus quite properly been permitted to trump a defendant's interest in avoiding successive prosecutions or multiple punishments for the same crime."30

Thus, because of jurisprudence regarding the dual sovereignty doctrine, because the charges against the officers were different under the Blockburger test, and because of the policy-related considerations, the retrial of the L.A.P.D. officers in the Rodney King trial was indeed in accordance with constitutional principles.

In conclusion, the recent movement to federalize crime has resulted in such legislation as the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which lacked provisions crucial to establishing constitutionality, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which compelled state officers to implement federal measures. Though the Court struck down both these laws, and while the decisions paved the way for critical inquiry into the constitutionality of other laws, the judicial precedent set is such that there is much room for federal crime legislation, so long as there is a clear link to constitutional principles such as the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. With respect to double prosecutions, the Court has long supported the idea that as dual sovereigns with concurrent jursidiction, both the federal and state governments may prosecute criminals, even for the same offense.

Thus, while case law indicates hostility towards measures which attempt to consolidate federal power at the expense of states, the Court supports proceedings such as double prosecution, wherein federal and state sovereignties remain intact.

That should do quite nicely. And there's no statute of limitations on murder.

Why did you post all of this? Did you even read it?

The double sovereignty fact has been posted already, this does not speak to a crime like OJ's, which is not a federal crime. Did he shoot his ex at school? Did he even shoot her?

Moreso, it does not speak at all to the question of whether an acquittal can be somehow magically 'overturned' and double jeopardy cease to apply.

Why this long, insubstantial, off-topic mess of a post?

You mean this case?

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/balmur.html

That's the one I was thinking of.

"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," FOX said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."

This isn't from the onion, its from here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229504,00.html


The mind boggles, truly, it boggles.

How the hell does this have anything to do with fox news? I've heard this from every news source. It's disgusting for sure...but disgusting because of OJ...not fox news for god's sake. For all places to have a liberal bias...honestly...

How the hell does this have anything to do with fox news? I've heard this from every news source. It's disgusting for sure...but disgusting because of OJ...not fox news for god's sake. For all places to have a liberal bias...honestly...

FOX news is the only station willing to make a 'television event' out of interviewing him.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel is what they do. Fair and Bottomfeeding.