Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Former federal prosecutor and National Review Online Contributing Editor Andrew C. McCarthy is in for Jim. Join Andy and Greg as they break down a Supreme Court ruling on whether double jeopardy protections exist between different systems or “sovereigns” – in this case whether a conviction is allowed in federal court after a verdict was rendered on similar offenses in the Court of Indian Offenses in Arizona. They also parse two rulings on immigration cases that came down on Monday. Finally, Andy also lays into the January 6th committee for being little more than a political performance by not allowing Republicans to choose their own committee members and not permitting cross-examination of witnesses.
Subscribe to Three Martini Lunch in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
I thought one of the principles of “double jeopardy” was supposed to be not trying someone twice on the same FACTS, not just the same “charge.”
Which is why, for example, in a murder trial, they’ll have all the possible charges together: 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. So the jury can basically pick which one they think is most appropriate.
Because if they have a trial for 1st degree murder and there is an acquittal, they can’t come back for another trial on 2nd degree murder. Because it’s the same FACTS, but not the same “charge.”
Andy McCarthy, besides his other problems, is one of those smart people who can’t count right: it won’t be 18 months until NEXT month.