Comments on: Did the Double Jeopardy Clause of the “original” Constitution bar re-trial after a hung jury? https://www.peoplevstate.com/?p=1733 fairly undermining public confidence in the administration of justice Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:07:59 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.15 By: Blackstone Lawyers | People v. State https://www.peoplevstate.com/?p=1733&cpage=1#comment-2370 Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:07:59 +0000 http://www.peoplevstate.com/?p=1733#comment-2370 […] few motives inspired this recent sally: 1. My recent inquiry into whether Scalia’s view of the original meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause is justified […]

]]> By: Jeff Gamso https://www.peoplevstate.com/?p=1733&cpage=1#comment-2342 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 04:55:08 +0000 http://www.peoplevstate.com/?p=1733#comment-2342 Rehnquist, writing for the majority in Richardson v. United States (1984), said, “The case law dealing with the application of the prohibition against placing a defendant twice in jeopardy following a mistrial because of a hung jury has its own sources and logic.”

As I wrote on the subject a couple of years ago (see http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2009/09/do-they-really-believe-this-stuff.html), “When ordinary logic won’t do, when they have to develop a new and special sort of logic, you know the rule they’ll come up with makes no sense. Here’s the rule: Even though the judge sent the first jury home, they then called a new jury and started over, the new trial is still the same trial.”

]]>