DOUBLE JEOPARDY: OJ vs. Jeffrey McDonald

[yurbud]

I understand the concept of double jeopardy, but how could Jeffrey McDonald, an army officer accused of killing his wife and kids, be tried, released and retried a couple of times?

Was there some prosecutorial slight of hand that wasn't used in the OJ case because the prosecutors wanted to avoid more riots or what?

[Ignacio Upton]

1. Question: what is double jeoparady?

Also...why can't OJ be tried again? He obviously did it, but Mark Fuhrman and Marcia Clark fucked up, allowing him to walk free.

[Fridays Child]

3. It's a rule that prohibits retrying defendants who are found innocent.

The idea is that a defendant has the right to not be placed in jeopardy twice for the same crime.

[yurbud]

4. If found innocent, can't be tried again (LINK to Wikipedia article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

[Mythsaje]

5. Double Jeopardy

revolves around the concept that the government (with its theoretically limitless resources) only gets ONE try at convincing a jury that someone is guilty of a particular crime. If they fail to do so, resulting in a "not guilty" verdict, they don't get to keep trying until they get a jury that finally agrees with them, whether it takes two times, or a thousand.

edited to be more concise.

[babylonsister]

2. McDonald's going pretty far back, but wasn't his first trial

conducted by the military? Perhaps that makes the difference? :shrug:

[LA lady]

9. It wasn't a trial

It was an Article 32 hearing and charges were dismissed for lack of evidence.

[dsc]

6. McDonald won an appeal

and then had his win reversed. OJ was aquitted.

[yurbud]

8. seems like splitting hairs in McDonald case--how could he get tried again after that?

Is it only jury verdict that counts?

[dsc]

10. His appeal was based on speedy trial

the first appeal timed speedy trial from the army hearing, the second appeal court used his civilian indictment. Once this successful appeal was reversed his conviction was affirmed. He actually only was tried once.

[unblock]

12. defendants appeal when they WANT a second trial

double jeopardy prevents prosecutors from trying again after a not guilty verdict.

if a guilty verdict is set aside due to an unfair trial, then prosecutors can try again. the defendant never got his one fair trial so there's no double jeopardy.

[QMPMom]

13. An Article 32 is not a trial.

The case was taken over by the Federal Prosecutors and MurderMac was found guilty of brutally murdering his pregnant wife and 2 small daughters.

[Sapphocrat]

7. Was MacDonald ever retried?

I could have sworn every attempt to get a new trial has failed -- but it's been a while since I've really followed the case.

[QMPMom]

14. MurderMac has only been tried once.

I've been studying this case for years. Jeffrey MacDonald has had more appeals than any other person in the Justice system - ever. No appeal has ever been successful.

He has always contended that the hair in Colette's (his murdered wife) hand would be that of the murderer. This past spring the DNA tests were released and that hair was found to be MurderMac's own hair.

His supporters continually bring up the presence of "intruders" in the murder house on Ft. Bragg, but there has never been any evidence found that there were intruders. All indications and evidence point to Colette (pregnant at the time of the murders), Kimberly (the oldest daughter), Kristen (the youngest daughter) and MurderMac as being the only people inside the house on the night/morning of the murders. All blood evidence in the house also points to MurderMac as being the killer, including his bloody footprints leading from the bed of one of the children.

A good book to read on the subject is Fatal Vision by Joe McGinnis. There are also some very good websites with information. They are:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/ - This site has evidentiary items and is the most thorough on the internet.

http://boards.aetv.com/category.jspa?categoryID=500000010

http://crimeshots.com/forums/index.php

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/

[Sapphocrat]

17. OK, that's what I thought, thanks.

Althoooooooough... I will debate you on "Fatal Vision" being a "good" book on the subject. Way biased, IMO. But don't worry, it will be a friendly debate -- I have no dog in this fight. :)

Remind me to get back into the True Crime forum... er, group?

[QMPMom]

18. Oh, no doubt that Fatal Vision is a bit biased, but McGinnis did

what he thought was right and not what the MurderMac organization wanted him to do. It's controversial but not nearly as controversial as Fatal Justice by Potter and Bost, which MurderMac basically edited by himself.

The links I noted have weeks worth of reading and the person that runs the first one on the list was at the trial and knows MurderMac personally. And she used to be a supporter of his.

[mountainvue]

19. McGinniss's book was biased. If you ever want to read

the other side of the story read Fatal Justice. I'm not convinced that MacDonald is guilty.

[QMPMom]

20. Fatal Justice is full of lies and half truth and was basically

edited by MurderMac himself. It's a waste of paper and money.

[Sapphocrat]

22. Nor am I.

I have enough serious "reasonable doubt" to hang any jury for eternity.

[kdmorris]

11. Here is the explanation put forth on one website

the Army Colonel (Colonel Rock) who presided over Jeff MacDonald's Article 32 hearing, dismissed the charges against him before progression to Court Martial. If he had been court martialed, and cleared, the Justice Department would not have been able to try him. But, because the charges against him were dropped, and a full court martial was not deemed necessary, they could and did.

That can be found at this website: http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/QandA.html

As far as I can tell, he's still in prison, according to the timeline listed to the left hand side.

[QMPMom]

15. The website you indicated is MurderMac's own

website and is full of many, many errors and falsehoods. Please see my links above for a more unbiased source.

[kdmorris]

21. Thanks!

I noticed that it was really slanted toward him and figured the site itself was not much use, but the explanation sounded plausible for why there was no double jeopardy in this case.

[yurbud]

16. the question is more or less answered to my satisfaction. Thanks for input

feel free to continue though

[malaise]

23. I don't give a flying fugg about OJ

Right now I'd prefer to see MSM discuss how and when Bushco will be tried for mass murder.