And honestly with all the political meddling during jury deliberations, I have a hard time seeing how a higher court doesn't remand.
The constitution says;
"[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."
Which means CHARGED WITH. Not convicted of, but charged with. What you're preaching is jew law, which isn't law.
<---I AM NOT A LAWYER -- THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE ---> agree or disagree isnt an issue, this is the way it works as I understand it.
after he is found not guilty, or some other verdict that clears him, he cant be charged again with the same offense.
Chauvin is charged with 3 distinct offenses for the same crime. Being charged with multiple violations of law for the same crime is quite common in our criminal justice system, from things like the local traffic level on up to the federal murders.
You can be charged with breaking multiple laws, and in situations like this one, only the highest will apply as they are all for the responsibility of this individuals death. Had he been charged with something else along the way, say some other infraction at the event that was not part of the death, but was still part of the event itself, thye could find guilty on that and add to the sentence for the death charge.
as @lawfag stated. Sp they can be sure to get a conviction on at least some level for the responsibility of the death.
Oh I understand how it's argued for. That doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional as fuck. He can only be charged with one offense for one crime. If the crime is actually 2 different things, then charge him as such. But it's not. Murder 2 and Murder 3 are the same thing for the same crime. To argue otherwise is pure kikery, wrong, and fucking retarded. You are fully controlled if you believe it's okay he was charged this way, let alone at all.
(post is archived)