home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / misc / legal / 23473 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-28  |  958 b 
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!portal!lll-winken!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!sgi!wdl1!wdl39!mab
  2. From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
  3. Newsgroups: misc.legal
  4. Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Amendment
  5. Message-ID: <1993Jan26.234413.24129@wdl.loral.com>
  6. Date: 26 Jan 93 23:44:13 GMT
  7. References: <MOORE.93Jan24145352@defmacro.cs.utah.edu>
  8. Sender: news@wdl.loral.com
  9. Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
  10. Lines: 12
  11.  
  12. In article <MOORE.93Jan24145352@defmacro.cs.utah.edu> moore@cs.utah.edu (Tim Moore) writes:
  13. >A side question: where is the principle that the State can't appeal an
  14. >acquittal stated, in the Constitution or somewhere else?
  15.  
  16. Amendment 5: ...; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence
  17. to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;...
  18.  
  19. This phrase of the 5th is usually used to justify not appealing acquittals.
  20.  
  21. --
  22. Mark Biggar
  23. mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
  24.