OscarMeyr wrote:
> He got hit with two criminal CFJs for the same act. I'm trying to
> find a way to dismiss the second one as double jeopardy (regardless
> of my ruling on CFJ 1948, as I feel CFJ 1951 should have been
> rejected ex genesis), but since it's citing a different rule than CFJ
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>He got hit with two criminal CFJs for the same act. I'm trying to
>find a way to dismiss the second one as double jeopardy
Make an ordinary ruling on culpability, but then sentence to DISCHARGE
(under the "manifestly unjust" provision) if the verdict is GUILTY.
-zefram
On May 30, 2008, at 9:40 PM, comex wrote:
On 5/30/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Second attempt at a valid ruling:
CFJ 1951 must be dismissed, under R101(vii): Every person has
the right to
not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
This part of
On 5/30/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Second attempt at a valid ruling:
>
> CFJ 1951 must be dismissed, under R101(vii): Every person has the right to
> not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
>
> This part of R101 is appropriate because CFJ 1951 i
On May 30, 2008, at 7:12 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CFJ 1951 is for the same act as CFJ 1948 (citing a different
rule), and
therefore becomes ALREADY JUDGED.
I think you mean ALREADY TRIED. But note that while it may
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFJ 1951 is for the same act as CFJ 1948 (citing a different rule), and
> therefore becomes ALREADY JUDGED.
I think you mean ALREADY TRIED. But note that while it may be
reasonable here, it's not appropriate because AL
6 matches
Mail list logo
