Ashton Kutcher Resigns From His Anti-Child Sex Abuse Organization Amid Danny Masterson Support Backlash
Ashton Kutcher Resigns From His Anti-Child Sex Abuse Organization Amid Danny Masterson Support Backlash
Kutcher apologized to the Thorn board following the news that he had written a letter in support of convicted rapist Danny Masterson.
You're viewing a single thread.
I always thought Masterson seemed like a creep, so I didn't pay much attention to this case when I heard about it.
Just read the article and another one it linked to regarding sentencing. It sounds like most of the jury voted for acquittal but it wasn't unanimous so the judge declared a mistrial and then retried him.
Anyone know how this isn't considered double-jeopardy? It sounds like the very definition of it to me. He was put on trial. The prosecutor was unable to secure a conviction, so the judge gave them another chance?
But weeks after the trial finally started in late 2022, the judge declared a mistrial after the jury remained deadlocked. Jurors in last year's case had leaned in favor of acquittal on all three counts against him -- voting 10-2 on one count, 8-4 on another and 7-5 on the third, but were unable to reach a unanimous decision, leading to the mistrial.
US Fifth Amendment excerpt:
nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb
That's how a jury trial works. You need all 12 to agree, otherwise it is a hung jury and declared a mistrial. It is then up to the prosecutor to retry the case if they want to.
It isn't double jeopardy because the trial didn't come to a decision. If all 12 jury members agreed, one way or another, that is the end of it. At least for that/those counts.
A split decision sounds like a decision to me. The prosecutor failed to convince a jury of the defendant’s guilt. I wonder how many times someone can be tried as long as the prosecutor is able to seat at least one sympathetic juror.
I could understand retrying the case if it was found out one of the jury was on the take, but this sounds exactly like the kind of thing the 5th amendment is supposed to stop.
Oh, we didn’t pick a good enough jury to convict him this time. Let’s try again.
It has to be unanimous. A split decision is not an acquittal anymore than it's a conviction.
That makes sense, but the 5th amendment doesn't mention conviction or acquittal.
Seems plain and clear that a retrial is being put in jeopardy a second time. Even my former justification of jury tampering doesn't seem to hold up to that measure.
He can appeal based on these grounds.
Rather or not he wins would depend on how reasonable it was for the judge to declare the first mistrial.
Anyway, a mistrial does not apply to the fifth amendment. It's not double jeopardy if the first trial is declared void.
In other words, a mistrial is not a trial. It's a dud and everyone is allowed to start again.
A mistrial is not a definitive outcome. Not-guilty or guilty would be the definitive outcome.
Mistrials don't incur double jeopardy, they invalidate the trial as if it didn't happen. It's how the law works.