Did the US not modify the double jeopardy rule like many other western countries to allow someone to be re-tried for offences such as murder, manslaughter etc. if there is fresh compelling evidence or something? I know it was changed in the UK, can never keep up with US law though as it is just so different in every state!!!
No.
In the OJ Simpson case, the family of Nicole and her friend actually tried him civilly, I think the first time he was found guilty, but when he appealed the guilty verdict was overturned - I could be wrong on that.
OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial, liable in the civil case, and subsequently found guilty on an unrelated robbery charge and sentenced to ten years in prison.
Neither his first nor his second criminal trial reflected well on the US justice system.
Did the US not modify the double jeopardy rule like many other western countries to allow someone to be re-tried for offences such as murder, manslaughter etc. if there is fresh compelling evidence or something? I know it was changed in the UK, can never keep up with US law though as it is just so different in every state!!!
No.
In the OJ Simpson case, the family of Nicole and her friend actually tried him civilly, I think the first time he was found guilty, but when he appealed the guilty verdict was overturned - I could be wrong on that.
seems even when you said you committed the murder you can be found not guilty.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/05/cardiologist-found-not-criminally-responsible-for-killing-kids
Did the US not modify the double jeopardy rule like many other western countries to allow someone to be re-tried for offences such as murder, manslaughter etc. if there is fresh compelling evidence or something? I know it was changed in the UK, can never keep up with US law though as it is just so different in every state!!!
No.
Did the US not modify the double jeopardy rule like many other western countries to allow someone to be re-tried for offences such as murder, manslaughter etc. if there is fresh compelling evidence or something? I know it was changed in the UK, can never keep up with US law though as it is just so different in every state!!!
Agree that you need more concrete evidence to convict for murder. BUT how could she not report her child missing for 30 days? I would freak out if my baby was missing for like 5 mins. Disgusting mother. I see pictures of this beautiful child on TV and feel so bad that her mother obviously did not give a damn about what had happened to her and she is not even going to be punished for this.
That poor little baby girl.
very true that there needed to be more concrete evidence. Plus there are too many lies from all the family members and how to know what is truth and what is fiction.
The unfortunate thing is the Double Jeopardy law where even if she came out and said yes she did do it she can't be convicted.
I've been following it abit, moreso in the last 2 weeks than when it began over a month ago. My initial reaction was shock, but when you look at the evidence presented, there was nothing concrete that could really pin her to the murder. Like it or not, that is the American justice system.
Her actions and her lies after her baby went missing are definitely suspect, but you can't convict someone on that. She had some involvement and her father for sure (he was a retired police officer), but unfortunately nothing that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
My heart goes out to that poor baby and hopefully the truth will come out at some point.