The Jury Spoke but the Supreme Court Did Not Listen

Today in BLUEFORD v.ARKANSAS another decision by the Supremes to weaken the rights of ordinary Americans as well as  power of their peers to decide cases while at the same time the BLUEFORD v. ARKANSAS increases the power of the state and encourages more “clerical” errors to violate the fifth Amendment of the  Constitution of the United States of America.

Case by case, the current Supreme Court of the United States weakens every individual right they have come before it.  Do only corporations, banks,  and police state favor now?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor decent, who was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. was dead-on and matches the history and original founders intent to protect individuals from both repeated harassment by the state and the stupidity of those that serve the state.   The jury spoke clearly to dismiss the charges of Capital Murder, but the majority of the Supreme Court dismissed that speech in favor of a mere clerical entry.  The resides in the voice jury and it spoke.

Read the short form of the opinion here:

OCTOBER   TERM,   2011                                       1

Syllabus

NOTE:    Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being   done   in  connection  with  this   case,   at   the   time  the   opinion   is issued.
The   syllabus   constitutes   no   part   of   the   opinion   of   the   Court   but   has   been
prepared   by   the   Reporter   of   Decisions   for   the   convenience   of   the   reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

BLUEFORD v. ARKANSAS

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. 10–1320.        Argued February 22, 2012—Decided May 24, 2012

The   State   of   Arkansas   charged   petitioner   Alex   Blueford   with   capital
murder for the death of a one-year-old child.                That charge included
the   lesser   offenses   of   first-degree   murder,  manslaughter,   and   negli-
gent   homicide.     Before   the   start   of  deliberations,   the   trial   court   in-
structed   the   jury   to   consider   the offenses   as   follows:   “If   you   have   a
reasonable   doubt   of   the   defendant’s  guilt   on   the   charge   of   capital
murder, you will consider the charge of murder in the first degree. . . .
If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt on the charge
of   murder   in   the   first   degree,   you  will   then   consider   the   charge   of
manslaughter. . . . If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s
guilt   on   the   charge    of  manslaughter,       you    will  then   consider     the
charge of negligent homicide.”          The court also presented the jury with
a   set   of  verdict   forms,    which    allowed     the  jury   either    to  convict
Blueford   of   one   of   the   charged   offenses,   or   to   acquit   him   of   all   of
them.     Acquitting on some but not others was not an option.
After deliberating for a few hours, the jury reported that it could
not reach a verdict.       The court inquired about the jury’s progress on
each offense.      The foreperson disclosed that the jury was unanimous
against guilt on the charges of capital murder and first-degree mur-
der,   was   deadlocked   on   manslaughter,   and   had   not   voted   on   negli-
gent homicide.      The court told the jury to continue to deliberate.              The
jury did so but still could not reach a verdict, and the court declared a
mistrial.    When the State subsequently sought to retry Blueford, he
moved to dismiss the capital and first-degree murder charges on dou-
ble jeopardy grounds.        The trial court denied the motion, and the Su-
preme Court of Arkansas affirmed on interlocutory appeal.

Held: The   Double   Jeopardy   Clause   does   not   bar   retrying   Blueford   on
charges of capital murder and first-degree murder.                 Pp. 5−10.
(a) The jury did not acquit Blueford of capital or first-degree mur-