Tuesday, October 04, 2005

About Famous Hostage Ashley Smith

With all the issues that surround the case of Brian Nichols the news media focus on the (now cured, of course) meth addiction of the hostage. (Some less mainstream sources focus on the rumor that she had s@# with Nichols.)

See: Angel's Dirty Secret

Why don't they question how a person can win one trial and then immediately be set up for a new trial on the same crime in a pretty obvious example of "jury shopping"

Nichols won a trial against charges that he kidnapped and raped an ex girlfriend. Yet he was immediately set up for a new trial on the same charges.

This led him to dispair in the justice system and take the actions he did.

And, yes, the computer technician, did choose to do wrong instead of seeking ways (or letting his lawyers seek ways) to get the ACLU involved, and he did commit multiple murders. But the Brian Nichols case seems to show that the right of protection against "Double Jeopardy" is no longer in effect.

The news media in true "keep on shopping, folks" fashion hide the constitutional issues involved in this event, and focus on the lurid and s**y aspects of it.

Why do they do that? Um, because the mainstream and right wing news media are controlled by their big money corporate supporters and by the Koolaid connection from the White House. For info on the second connection see link under "Most Important News on TitH" about conference calls.

Link above about Double Jeopardy leads to Findlaw's examination of the constitution on that subject.

''The constitutional prohibition against 'double jeopardy' was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. . . . The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.''


Throughout most of its history, this clause was binding only against the Federal Government.


In Benton v. Maryland, however, the Court concluded ''that the double jeopardy prohibition . . . represents a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage. . . . Once it is decided that a particular Bill of Rights guarantee is 'fundamental to the American scheme of justice,' . . . the same constitutional standards apply against both the State and Federal Governments.'' Therefore, the double jeopardy limitation now applies to both federal and state governments and state rules on double jeopardy, with regard to such matters as when jeopardy attaches, must be considered in the light of federal standards.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link