WRITING - Joe Bob's America

Am I the only guy in America who's upset because we keep putting people on trial TWICE?

We did it with the Rodney King police officers. We did it with O.J.

We did it with this guy Lemrick Nelson, who's accused of starting the Crown Heights riots.

I know the explanation. There's a technical legal explanation. And it goes like this: "Well, the first time we tried him, we were trying him for murder. The second time, we were putting him on trial for a completely different crime-a civil rights violation, or a civil case to get money for the victim's family."

I don't think it even bothers anybody that it's not that uncommon anymore to be found INNOCENT of a crime, but then still have to pay the VICTIMS of the crime you were accused of but never did.

This whole system we have now is double jeopardy. You can call it whatever you want, and I'm sure the courts have drawn up very nice distinctions that justify it, but it's double jeopardy for two reasons:

1. Both trials are based on the same evidence and the same incident. This was true in the case of the Rodney King officers, O.J., and Lemrick Nelson.
2. If authorities nail the guy on a murder rap in the criminal trial and he ends up in Leavenworth, they don't BOTHER with the second trial. In other words, it's only used when they want to "take another shot."

In America, you're not supposed to get another shot. For one thing, the defendant is ALWAYS gonna do worse in a second trial, because he loses the element of surprise. Anything he said in the first trial can be used against him in the second one.

At the very least, we should try all these charges in the same courtroom and at the same time. The government shouldn't be able to hold cases "in reserve" so that, if they mess up the first time, they can start building their secret "other" case.

The original purpose of the civil rights laws, which are often used in cases like this, was not to try people for murder who had already been tried for murder. And, in fact, they were narrowly directed at people who acted "under color of law"-primarily police officers who abused people and caused a death, or people IMPERSONATING police officers.

Which one was Lemrick Nelson? He may or may not have yelled, "Kill the Jews"-one jury has already decided he didn't-but he CERTAINLY didn't yell: "In the name of the law, kill the Jews!" He wasn't wearing a uniform. I don't think anyone remotely close to the riots thought the inciter was a cop, or claimed to be a cop. So how much perversion of the original law did they have to do to even BRING civil rights charges against a civilian?

We should be upset when people go to trial twice for the same crime. We should be especially upset when it becomes a routine way to "appeal" an innocent verdict.

This is the third time I've written about this, and as far as I can tell, I'm still a minority of one.