I'm sure most of you have heard of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada who is currently awaiting court martial for refusing to deploy with his unit to Iraq. He's from Hawaii, so it's a big local issue here. His father, Bob Watada, and step-mother spoke to a group of supporters yesterday at Maui Community College. Bob made this comment yesterday
quote:The senior Watada said defense attorney Eric Seitz has said he will appeal the decision “all the way to the Supreme Court” because it is a violation of the Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy.
“All the conditions for double jeopardy are met,” Watada said.
When the mistrial was announced last month, I remember reading a similar statement from the (civilian) attorney representing Watada.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that double jeopardy did not apply in the case of a mistrial. I googled and wikipedia'd and it seems that I'm right.
quote: a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause, because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not guilty
So what's the deal here? Why is this attorney making all this noise about double jeopardy? Is there any chance that he'll succeed with this appeal, or is he just trying to make a distraction?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Maybe it's just "make as much noise" as possible. That kinda defense isn't terrible in all cases. :/
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
does this precedent even apply to courts martial vs civilian courts? I believe the rules are quite different between the two. Actually I didn't even think court martial decisions could be appealed in civilian courts (though I'm admittedly not very knowledgable in this area)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay. I was just reading a different article about this case. From what I understand, the mistrial would not cause double jeopardy-- what they're saying should is the plea agreement that was reached prior to a mistrial being declared. The defense objected to a mistrial being declared, I think that's what I'm reading anyway. And I read somewhere else that jeopardy attaches to a plea agreement/guilty plea, even if it is later withdrawn. So maybe it's something about that? I have no clue. I can't wait for Dags to explain whether double jeopardy really comes into play or not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The wikipedia snippet is incomplete. There are two types of mistrials that will raise a double jeopardy bar to a subsequent trial:
1.) Goaded mistrials that the defendant asks for in response to an improper act by the prosecutor intended to cause defendant to move for a mistrial. This is very hard to prove, because it requires proof of subjective intent by the prosecutor.
2.) Mistrials not caused by "manifest necessity." A hung jury is the paradigm case of manifest necessity.
The judge's claim for manifest necessity seems to be that there was disagreement about what the stipulation signed by Watada actually meant. I'd have to do research. However, if the jury saw evidence that they weren't supposed to, there's a chance it could be found to be manifestly necessary.
Short answer is that there's a distinct possibility DJ will apply. I won't rate it's chances, though.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Thanks, Dag. This has been bugging me since the mistrial was declared, but I didn't have time then to post to ask. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :