🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <471v6n$376@spectator.cris.com>, malloy@cris.com (Sean Malloy) wrote:
>shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
>>*I never disagreed with the two statements of objective fact you made
>>*-- that OJ was found not guilty, and that Ron and Nicole are now dead.
>>*However, your statement that neither of these could in any way be
>>*altered was false-to-fact; while there is no way to change Ron and
>>*Nicole's "metabolically challenged" state, a procedure -- albeit
>>*unlikely -- exists whereby the country's laws could be changed to
>>*permit retrying Simpson, which could achieve a different verdict. It
>>Well, actually, no.  You see, our Consitution has that pesky little
>>"no ex post facto laws" clause.
>
>See what walking into a thread in mid-scream will get you?
>
>That was the change I described -- _if_ the Constitution were amended
>to strike the prohibition against double jeopardy, _then_ OJ could be
>brought to trial again (and again, and again, ad nauseam), where the
>verdict could be different.

Yeah but, that would just be ANOTHER verdict, wouldnt change _history_.

You are talking about another effort to put him away, not not changing
the prior verdict.

Question.

Could the prosecution put up some sorta appeal later, if they came across
as yet undiscovered evidence, or some unthought of nuance regarding one of
Ito's decisions?  CAN the prosecution appeal an acquittal at all?

Even then, the prior verdict would only be reversed, not rubbed out.

[followups set/dfw.personals delete from header]


Rich Bland
rcb@intsyson.com
Skeptic On The Go...