generic image
Processing...
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
  • Search in Players
  • Search in Games
  • Search in Catalog
  • Search in Groups
  • Search in Library
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
   
ROBLOX Forum » Club Houses » Clans & Guilds
Home Search
 

Re: doj

Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Fauxtillion is not online. Fauxtillion
Joined: 02 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 45870
01 Mar 2016 10:01 PM
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Memorandum Opinion to Federal Judge Mauv
Feasibility of Reopening a Tampered Court Proceeding
March 1, 2016

On the recent case of United States v. Adam11087, Soljakirk, et al., various high-profile employees of the Department of Homeland Security were prosecuted for crimes committed in the performance of their duties as employees of this department. In high-profile criminal cases, the judge must screen jurors for any potential link to defendants, and failure to do so can result in a tampered jury. One might ask what constitutes a high-profile case, and the definition is fluid; in general terms, when a defendant is potentially well-known (such as a high-rank in a government department might be) or if the case is "juicy," there is a high risk for people the defendant knows to be placed on the jury. To keep track of when this happens, the Department of Justice informally refers to such a case as a high-profile case, and the judge is expected to be very thorough in identifying possibly biased jurors.

Please do not assume that a biased juror is consciously trying to sway justice; it is simply human nature to subconsciously act biased in a situation in which the juror and the defendant know each other. More often than not, a biased juror does not consciously act prejudiced; prior feelings just act as a lens through which evidence presented is seen. As such, the Department of Justice isn't immediately suspecting foul play, but the federal courts did approve a preliminary audit of the Homeland Security Department to prove that no foul play occurred.

Now, on to the question of if United States v. Adam11087, Soljakirk, et al. can be reopened. Since most of the defendants were found guilty, it is not unheard of to give a trial de novo, and usually it is in the defendants' favor to have a new trial after being found guilty. However, one might argue that this violates double jeopardy to have the same case tried in the same court of law. According to the 5th Amendment, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." To many, this seems like you may never--like, ever--repeat a trial for the same offense in the same court, but that isn't entirely true. Note that it says "put in jeopardy of life or limb." As such, it is explicitly stating that it is double jeopardy only if the trial placed a significant risk that the defendant could be convicted fairly.

However, it is noteworthy to remember that two of the jurors were actually employees of the Department of Homeland Security, the same department that all of the defendants worked in. As such, they must have had some working relationship, meaning that the trial was inherently unfair, as described above. This, to me, does not seem like it actually put the defendants in jeopardy of life or limb; they had a very high chance that the two jurors would vote in their favor (not guilty) just because they knew each other. If only one juror was a DHLS employee, I would be less uncomfortable; a jury cannot be hung with only one dissenter. However, with even so few as two jurors in dissent, a jury can be hung, leading to dismissal of charges or a mistrial; this would substantially benefit the defendant, for obvious reasons. (Dismissal of charges means they go free, and a mistrial often leads to dismissal later on in our courts.)

As such, the defendants weren't put in jeopardy of life or limb, so double jeopardy doesn't apply. Therefore, it is of the opinion of the Attorney General--and the Department of Justice as a whole--that a new trial may be given to each defendant.

Dutifully Signed this 1st Day of March, 2016:
Synapsic (Attorney_General),
Attorney General of the United States

Fauxtillion,
Deputy Attorney General of the United States
Report Abuse
Laedere is not online. Laedere
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Total Posts: 23601
01 Mar 2016 10:01 PM
no one cares XD
Report Abuse
mohamed122601 is not online. mohamed122601
Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Total Posts: 809
01 Mar 2016 10:15 PM
Define the context of "juicy"
Report Abuse
Telephonics is not online. Telephonics
Joined: 25 Sep 2011
Total Posts: 473
01 Mar 2016 10:31 PM
go back to japan you disgrace we don't want you here
Report Abuse
U_7 is not online. U_7
Joined: 30 Dec 2014
Total Posts: 21
01 Mar 2016 11:20 PM
^
Report Abuse
Kiroll is not online. Kiroll
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Total Posts: 9285
01 Mar 2016 11:30 PM
juice is gas
Report Abuse
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 1 of 1
 
 
ROBLOX Forum » Club Houses » Clans & Guilds
   
 
   
  • About Us
  • Jobs
  • Blog
  • Parents
  • Help
  • Terms
  • Privacy

©2017 Roblox Corporation. Roblox, the Roblox logo, Robux, Bloxy, and Powering Imagination are among our registered and unregistered trademarks in the U.S. and other countries.



Progress
Starting Roblox...
Connecting to Players...
R R

Roblox is now loading. Get ready to play!

R R

You're moments away from getting into the game!

Click here for help

Check Remember my choice and click Launch Application in the dialog box above to join games faster in the future!

Gameplay sponsored by:
Loading 0% - Starting game...
Get more with Builders Club! Join Builders Club
Choose Your Avatar
I have an account
generic image