9
9
0
Freedom
Justice
Law
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EDIT: My original posting (left unchanged below, because to change it would make the comments correcting me look off-kilter) was in error. My answer dealt with a dismissal WITHOUT prejudice, even though I correctly quoted the article as the dismissal being WITH prejudice.
So my posting below is wrong.
Thanks to Wayne Wood and Edward Jones Jr. for correcting me.
ORIGINAL POST:
Actually, he didn't "win" the case. The judge dismissed it "with prejudice".
It's the same thing as when the prosecuting attorney, or the trial attorney in the military, "withdraws charges with prejudice". It means the government reserves the right to re-prefer charges again if they so choose.
The reasons for this are varied. Essentially, it means they believe there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, but the government doesn't (yet) have a strong enough case to actually win it. So they withdraw charges (dismiss the trial, in this case) and put it on "hold", until a point where they decide the have enough to proceed again.
In this case, the judge dismissed the trial with prejudice because he determined the prosecution withheld evidence. If the prosecution gets their act together, they can once again attempt to take this to trial.
Now, there have been several members of this whole fiasco who have already been tried and acquitted or ended in hung juries. Clive's trial ended with every serious charge against him being returned "not guilty" and only minor charges "guilty". If his trial ended there, then that would have been the end of it. HOWEVER...with the judge dismissing "with prejudice"...this opens up the possibility of the government being able to prosecute him again, once the prosecution gets its act together.
There are some who would look at this and think that the government is stacking the deck so they can do just that...try him again. And quite frankly, I wouldn't put it past the government to be doing exactly that.
So my posting below is wrong.
Thanks to Wayne Wood and Edward Jones Jr. for correcting me.
ORIGINAL POST:
Actually, he didn't "win" the case. The judge dismissed it "with prejudice".
It's the same thing as when the prosecuting attorney, or the trial attorney in the military, "withdraws charges with prejudice". It means the government reserves the right to re-prefer charges again if they so choose.
The reasons for this are varied. Essentially, it means they believe there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, but the government doesn't (yet) have a strong enough case to actually win it. So they withdraw charges (dismiss the trial, in this case) and put it on "hold", until a point where they decide the have enough to proceed again.
In this case, the judge dismissed the trial with prejudice because he determined the prosecution withheld evidence. If the prosecution gets their act together, they can once again attempt to take this to trial.
Now, there have been several members of this whole fiasco who have already been tried and acquitted or ended in hung juries. Clive's trial ended with every serious charge against him being returned "not guilty" and only minor charges "guilty". If his trial ended there, then that would have been the end of it. HOWEVER...with the judge dismissing "with prejudice"...this opens up the possibility of the government being able to prosecute him again, once the prosecution gets its act together.
There are some who would look at this and think that the government is stacking the deck so they can do just that...try him again. And quite frankly, I wouldn't put it past the government to be doing exactly that.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Wayne Wood
Dismissing with prejudice is in no way similar to the prosecution dropping charges... ESPECIALLY in a case of prosecutorial misconduct (witholding exculpatory evidence)
(2)
(0)
CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr.
Correct. The case was dismissed WITH prejudice because of government misconduct. The government withheld exculpatory evidence from the jury that would have been beneficial to the defendants and could have resulted in a NOT GUILTY verdict. This is a MAJOR NONO and many a lawyer has been disbarred for this. The judge was very specific in his orders and the lawyers in question are in deep kimchee. Soooooo...... now that this is over the government is batting ZERO.
(0)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
Sgt Wayne Wood - CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr. - My mistake...I misread, probably reading into the article what I was thinking instead of reading the actual words, even though I quoted it. Silly me. I was THINKING "without prejudice", even though I quoted "with prejudice".
Thanks to the both of you for correcting me. I'll edit my answer to reflect this.
Thanks to the both of you for correcting me. I'll edit my answer to reflect this.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google