Why not? The double jeopardy clause is about prosecuting a single person twice; it says nothing about prosecuting a second person for the same crime. Heck, convicting a second person wouldn’t even automatically invalidate the first conviction. (SCOTUS has ruled that innocence is not a sufficient reason to overturn a conviction.)
Remember, we have a judicial system. Calling it a “justice system” is inaccurate.
They can once they release that conviction but it goes to show ineptitude and malfeasance which casts doubt on any further attempt to convict someone. And yes it would, shadow of a doubt is a high standard and a second conviction is a huge amount of doubt.
Factual innocence is different, it’s a positive defense for literally any criminal charge.
There’s no mechanism to release a conviction. Usually, if prosecutors have convicted somebody for murder, they won’t pursue a case against a second person only for reason of not wanting to admit that they may have got it wrong. But there’s no legal barrier, and it has happened for other crimes. The Ninth Circuit even ruled that it’s legal.
Reversed, released, overturned are all the same thing and happen literally daily. Where did you get your information that a conviction can’t be changed?
Ed: reading your source it hinged on the crime technically being capable of being committed by multiple people and this one clearly can’t be.
Sure, a conviction can be overturned, but what I’m pointing out here is that it doesn’t have to be in order to convict somebody else for the same crime.
And there isn’t. If prosecutors file a new case against a second person for the same crime, and get a conviction, there’s no mechanism by which that second conviction overturns the previous conviction. Depending on the circumstances, the first person convicted may not even have grounds to have their case brought before a court to be re-examined.
I think that’s exactly where it’s going. Get convicted, real killer confesses and the state can’t pursue a crime they’ve convicted someone for.
Why not? The double jeopardy clause is about prosecuting a single person twice; it says nothing about prosecuting a second person for the same crime. Heck, convicting a second person wouldn’t even automatically invalidate the first conviction. (SCOTUS has ruled that innocence is not a sufficient reason to overturn a conviction.)
Remember, we have a judicial system. Calling it a “justice system” is inaccurate.
WHAT
Here’s an in-depth article from Slate.
They can once they release that conviction but it goes to show ineptitude and malfeasance which casts doubt on any further attempt to convict someone. And yes it would, shadow of a doubt is a high standard and a second conviction is a huge amount of doubt.
Factual innocence is different, it’s a positive defense for literally any criminal charge.
There’s no mechanism to release a conviction. Usually, if prosecutors have convicted somebody for murder, they won’t pursue a case against a second person only for reason of not wanting to admit that they may have got it wrong. But there’s no legal barrier, and it has happened for other crimes. The Ninth Circuit even ruled that it’s legal.
Reversed, released, overturned are all the same thing and happen literally daily. Where did you get your information that a conviction can’t be changed?
Ed: reading your source it hinged on the crime technically being capable of being committed by multiple people and this one clearly can’t be.
Sure, a conviction can be overturned, but what I’m pointing out here is that it doesn’t have to be in order to convict somebody else for the same crime.
Sure. But you said there isn’t a mechanism for it, there clearly is.
And there isn’t. If prosecutors file a new case against a second person for the same crime, and get a conviction, there’s no mechanism by which that second conviction overturns the previous conviction. Depending on the circumstances, the first person convicted may not even have grounds to have their case brought before a court to be re-examined.
Automatically? No, almost nothing but enhancements are automatic.
What I hear you saying it is not just possible but probable.