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
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
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-