JUST IN: Supreme Court Hears Case Concerning The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McElrath v. Georgia.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com

[@user-mn4sr7ti5u]

The people of the jury have spoken. We the people!! They can have all the judges, lawyers, and laws they want but we still hold the power. Do not let them retry people!!!! Tough crap Georgia!!! You lost!!! Otherwise they will sneak in charges that can cause a second trial in all cases. Just my opinion.

[@user-mn4sr7ti5u]

If the states tell us to go back and decide on the current charges. Then we find them not guilty. I thought a jury of your peers decide your punishment. This really is a waste of time!!! WTF!!!

[@dianehouston3452]

I pray Lord for Your wisdom upon the Supreme Court in Jesus name to do what is right, trueth and good and justice. Amen

[@ronaldpeter5133]

The bronson case that's what we want to hear about... 81 million votes 😂😂😂

[@SmokeStackLightning.]

What in the world has happened to Georgia.

[@jamesellis2784]

Thanks too people who have set aside time for people .

[@laurymc1977]

Supreme Court has constant pressure to move to the LEFT ...constant

[@rosssimpson6268]

And so it should, given the 6-3 RIGHT makeup that Trump engineered!

[@StuartKlimek]

The lawyer arguing is wrong. A person can be both sane and insane on a single charge. The jury decides whether the indicted individual is guilty. A judge can rule the verdict as unfounded if he believes the jury did not base a verdict of guilty on law and facts. If the jury found the individual not guilty, the judge can not impose a guilty verdict.

[@ritatharp5238]

Good Grief! 😮

[@dianehouston3452]

What is this about. Who is the lawyer?. Anyone

[@kinokun]

The major question here is if someone can be retried for the same charges if they received an inconsistent verdict of guilty in one charge, and not guilty in another.
Mcelrath killed his mother - in the Georgia Supreme Court case, the jury found that he was guilty but mentally ill of felony murder, but not guilty of malice murder by reason of insanity. Georgia vacated both of these charges, (meaning the defendant could be retried for these crimes.) which Mcelrath argues violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
There's a special rule in Georgia talking about repugnant verdicts - basically, if there are verdicts which don't make sense (e.g. they called the defendant insane and not insane in one go), then they can essentially nullify the jury's determination. Basically, acquittals aren't acquittals if there's a special circumstance involved.
To me, we should side with Mcelrath. Repungancy rule sounds unconstitutional.

[@dianehouston3452]

@kinokun thank you. I still stand with my last post wisdom for what is good, truth, and justice, because I don't know the people and I wasn't there.
I understand both sides. O boy, God help us. What a mess

[@bartmanxoxo]

Hmmmn

[@marcelchagnon4960]

Thy stole al gore elections fuuu kangaroo republiscunt

[@brendashotwell1405]

B S

[@michelleschiavone4158]

BS waste of time

[@1morechip]

Constitutional rights are a waste of time?