General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Juror B37 's Husband who is an Attorney Knows Mark O' Mara (Zimmerman's Defense Lawyer) [View all]Spazito
(50,290 posts)and ruled in favor of the State in that they could bring in conspiracy in their re-trial making the claim by the defendant that raising the conspiracy was double jeopardy.
"Following full briefing and argument, the trial court denied Mr. Taylor's motion. The trial court agreed with Mr. Taylor that his acquittal of conspiracy leads to issue preclusion as a component of double jeopardy, but that issue preclusion need not result in a complete bar to further prosecution on any theory. In concluding that Mr. Taylor's motion should be denied, the trial court held that it was
․ unable to determine which issue [whether Mr. Taylor was part of a conspiracy or whether Mr. Taylor had shot and killed the decedent as alleged] was necessarily decided in Mr. Taylor's favor by the jury in its verdict of acquittal of the conspiracy charge against him and, accordingly, which issue should be precluded in Mr. Taylor's impending trial as a component of double jeopardy.
Without knowing which issue was necessarily decided by the jury, the trial court denied the motion and did not exclude any issue from being argued by the State in Mr. Taylor's retrial."
This decision allowed for the State to use conspiracy as part of their argument on the murder charge even though the defendant claimed he had been acquitted on that charge and to reintroduce it was double jeopardy.