Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

1965Comet

(175 posts)
2. I'm not sure where I stand on this change,
Wed Jan 25, 2017, 09:15 AM
Jan 2017

but the below quote is just wrong, legally speaking. This change would make it harder for a prosecutor to bring a case to trial beyond the invocation of the SYG defense at the initial hearing. Thus, the defendant's rights would not be prejudiced at all but would rather be enhanced (at least, if you believe that there is a right to shoot without retreat, and it seems that there is in FL at the moment).

Double Jeopardy doesn't enter into this at all, since the prosecutors are the ones being hurt by this rule.


"The plan also raises among critics renewed constitutional questions of double jeopardy in that requiring a burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" would essentially force prosecutors to try a case twice, once before trial and then at the trial itself. "

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Conservative Republican l...»Reply #2