Just when you think you’ve heard it all with regards to George Zimmerman 1, you’re accosted by this…article…claiming to have uncovered stunning jury tampering in the trial. But you already know, without even reading the article, that that’s just bullshit.
I’ll leave the debunking in depth to the Windypundit, but the gist is that the jurors in the Zimmerman trial did not, in fact, look anything like the 12 Angry Men and were permitted, for two hours on the weekends, to have contact with their families, ergo there was tampering and the verdict is illegal or something.
But hidden in that catastrophe of an “expose” is the far more curiouser point. The author seems to be adamant – in the comments – that:
actually, yes, you can declare a mistrial after the verdict in cases where jury tampering is found. Florida has multiple cases of it on record and validated all the way up to the SCOTUS.
When pressed, he asserts that:
Actually yes, it can. In cases of jury tampering, the entire verdict can be thrown out and the whole case retried, per the laws of the state of Florida.
I checked the books, Florida has a statute of up to three years for such a mistrial declaration.
Of course, there’s no cite to any of this, nor is there a clarification of what “verdict” entails. Here’s a hint if you can’t wait for literally the next sentence: verdict means guilty verdict, because it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment to retry someone after an acquittal.
Nathaniel Downes, meet Justice Brennan:
Perhaps the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence has been that “[a] verdict of acquittal. . . could not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting [a defendant] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.” United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671 (1896).
And Justice Day:
As to the defendant who had been acquitted by the verdict duly returned and received, the court could take no other action than to order his discharge. The verdict of acquittal was final, and could not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting him twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.However it may be in England, in this country a verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310.
There is, of course, no provision or allowance for the declaration of a mistrial after a jury’s acquittal of a defendant because of a discovery of “juror misconduct” which is nothing more than jurors acting like human beings and talking to their families.
Except that there’s Harry Aleman 2. Harry Aleman is now serving a sentence of 100-300 years in jail, after being tried and convicted of murder in the late 1990s. Harry Aleman is the subject of a very unusual ruling. You see, in May 1977, Harry Aleman was acquitted of that same murder.
And so arises the one strange instance in the last 50 years 3 where someone was successfully re-prosecuted after a prior acquittal. But to underscore how unusual and bizarre this is, the reasoning for permitting this reprosecution was that he bribed the judge to acquit him in 1977.
Yep. Straight up bribery of Judge Frank Wilson – $7,500 worth – to acquit Aleman of the charge of murder. Eventually, someone got wind of it, started a new prosecution and Aleman argued that it was prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
In what can only be described as an outcome-oriented decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the re-prosecution, deftly arguing that since the judge was bribed, Aleman was never “in jeopardy” of conviction and thus, the Clause didn’t apply. Get it? He wasn’t in jeopardy.
The legal conclusion urged by Aleman might not be an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, but the highly deferential standard of collateral review leads us to hold that the contrary interpretation —the one adopted by the Illinois courts in this case — is also not unreasonable. The Illinois courts viewed the authority cited by Aleman as begging the question; the Double Jeopardy Clause may well be absolute when it applies, see Burks, 437 U.S. at 11 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. at 2147 n. 6, but determining if it applies is the real issue in this case.
Similarly, the State argues that the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause only extend to a defendant who was once before in jeopardy of conviction on a particular criminal charge; the State contends that, by bribing Judge Wilson, Aleman created a situation in which he was never in jeopardy at his first trial. The first trial, therefore, was a sham and the acquittal there rendered has no effect for double jeopardy purposes. Under this theory, the State was free to re-indict him because he has never been in jeopardy of conviction on the Logan murder charge.
SCOTUS held its nose while denying certiorari and the rest is history, relegated to the stacks never to be cited again. Literally. No one has cited that case for that proposition in the last 16 years 4.
That’s because, as this law review article willed into existence solely by the Aleman case argues, the downsides of carving out such an exception are tremendous 5. The purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause is that the Government gets only one opportunity to bring its might and power to bear on the individual and if the Government is unable to use that opportunity to convince 6 or 12 people that the weight of its evidence proves guilt, then they are not deserving of a second chance.
If we are to permit States to continually re-try people until they get a favorable verdict, then defendants will forever live in fear of prosecution and the burden will be too great to bear. While the State may have (comparatively) unlimited resources, no individual would be able to match it and would necessarily eventually succumb to pressure and either admit guilt or be unable to defend himself. Who is to determine that the acquittal was obtained in an illegal way? What is the standard of proof? What is to stop vindictive prosecutors from asserting, time after time, that the acquittals were products of tampering or other illegality and thus keeping the individual forever under the unyielding microscope that is the State’s attention? Convictions would be the product of tyranny and coercion rather than an adversarial testing of the evidence.
Certainly, arguing that the principles that we hold so dear should be ignored and altered because of one unfavorable and undesirable result creates a situation that undermines those rights for all of us.