Humanities desk
< November 18	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 19

intentional mistrial

Without wanting to touch the political overtones of the Rittenhouse trial, from what I can tell:

Prosecution at first didn't break any rules, but did a crappy job making their case, to the point where it made them look likely to lose.
Prosecution then broke rules in a way that could plausibly improperly influence the jury against the defense.
That made the defense argue to the judge that the prosecution broke the rules on purpose because wanted to get the case declared a mistrial, so they could get a retrial as a do-over. (This didn't end up happening, and Rittenhouse was eventually acquitted).

My question is whether that tactic of messing up deliberately and seeking a mistrial is common for prosecutors, and how judges tend to handle it. I know that defendants try it sometimes, and it usually doesn't work. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Mistrial does not always mean a do-over. Double_jeopardy may apply in some cases, so the defendent could not be tried again. RudolfRed (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The defense asked that if there was a mistrial, that it be with prejudice (no retrial allowed); otherwise I believe the prosecution would be allowed to opt for a retrial. Double jeopardy afaict only kicks in if a trial completes and acquits the person. A trial cancelled in the middle (mistrial) doesn't count as a completed trial. IANAL obvs though. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double jeopardy kicks in after being acquitted or convicted; in the United States, double jeopardy rules also apply only within each sovereign government. That means that if you are alleged to have committed a crime that falls within the jurisdiction of multiple states, or one or more states and the federal government, a person may be put in jeopardy separately in each one of those jurisdictions. There have been cases where a person was acquitted by the federal government and then convicted by a state for the same crime, and vice versa. US territories have no sovereignty, nor does Washington, DC, so in those places a person can truly only be tried once (e.g., if you're tried in a Puerto Rican court, you may not be tried again in a federal court). Also, if a conviction is thrown out on appeal, you can usually be tried again; b there was one guy that was tried and convicted, like, 8 times and each time successfully appealed, then finally on the 9th time was acquitted. Also, if there's a hung jury, then the prosecutor may retry any of the charges that the jury couldnt reach a decision on. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6033:FF4F:6CE5:7BA8 (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the specific case that started this question, I'm fairly sure I heard the defence say if you the prosecutor does that again I'll be asking for a mistrial with prejudice. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify I'm not suggesting the prosecutor was intentionally trying to cause a mistrial in the case highlighted. Simply that the defence brought up the issue of a mistrial with prejudice.

Anyway 2600 & 2602 I don't think your understanding of double jeopardy is quite correct for the US. The above linked article specifically notes in the Double jeopardy#United States section that 'Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is impanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted.' This is explained in more detail at Double Jeopardy Clause and is on various annotated versions of the constitutions e.g. [1] or [2]. The articles also explain how mistrials come in to this.

Noting that in some cases the defence could be doing bad enough that they wish for a mistrial even if it's likely to result in a second case, being denied a retrial likely isn't the only legal barrier. I suspect in pretty much all jurisdictions, a lawyer intentionally doing something to cause a mistrial may find themselves subject to disciplinary proceedings by the bar or whoever regulates their conduct, as with other forms of intentional misconduct (unfortunately that article isn't very good). As I understand it and per the articles, the role of the judge here will generally be referring the lawyer's alleged misconduct for further examination. (Just a quick note, as per prosecutorial misconduct notes, misconduct can include unintentional error in some cases.)

The State vs. Harris case in the Kansas Supreme Court [3] (not to be confused with United States v. Harris) may be of some limited interest here it dealt in part with whether the prosecutor there was intentionally trying to cause a mistrial.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any change to a bitcoin style cripto that would protect itself from fractional reserve banking?

Fractional reserve banking type of things can be done with fungible items. Is there any change to bitcoin (or bitcoin style crypto) that would make fractional reserve banking impossible or harder to exist? As some example, would Demurrage (currency) make it harder to happen?187.113.188.120 (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can prevent it, since fractional reserve banking is based on creating money out of nowhere, while bitcoin is more like a rare commodity. Indeed, bitcoin has mostly failed as a medium of exchange since it is inherently deflationary. Demurrage is supposed to increase the velocity of money but these days isn't that handled by fractional reserve banking instead? Disclaimer: I don't really understand this stuff, beyond looking at a few of those articles back in the day. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]