No. I don't need to be a lawyer to know you can't retroactively apply a SC decision to cases that have already concluded.
You can appeal a case, hoping that you'll benefit from the ruling, but, no, you don't just strike all prior cases involving non-unanimous jury sentences as being Unconstitutional or invalid.
Just think of how many thousands and thousands of criminals would be released on the streets if you could do that.
Actually it is common knowledge that verdicts need to be unanimous. If the jury vote in the Hush Money case was truly 4-4-4, then the jury needs to go back and deliberate until they do reach a verdict. Otherwise, a hung jury would need to be declared along with a new trial.
That's for the vote as to if they're guilty or not guilty.
The SC decision was how the jury ruled on sentencing.
Edited to add: I feel the need to point out that sentencing is when the judge or jury decides what your punishment will be, after you've been found guilty of whatever. Just in case we weren't clear on what sentencing is.
Are you a lawyer? Why couldn't it be applied to trumps case. Pretty much all such decisions apply to past cases.
No. I don't need to be a lawyer to know you can't retroactively apply a SC decision to cases that have already concluded.
You can appeal a case, hoping that you'll benefit from the ruling, but, no, you don't just strike all prior cases involving non-unanimous jury sentences as being Unconstitutional or invalid.
Just think of how many thousands and thousands of criminals would be released on the streets if you could do that.
Actually it is common knowledge that verdicts need to be unanimous. If the jury vote in the Hush Money case was truly 4-4-4, then the jury needs to go back and deliberate until they do reach a verdict. Otherwise, a hung jury would need to be declared along with a new trial.
Their are no thousands of criminals to be released.
They were all unanimous decistions.
https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=tablet-android-samsung-rvo1&source=android-browser&q=unanimouse+decitions+criminal+cases
That's for the vote as to if they're guilty or not guilty.
The SC decision was how the jury ruled on sentencing.
Edited to add: I feel the need to point out that sentencing is when the judge or jury decides what your punishment will be, after you've been found guilty of whatever. Just in case we weren't clear on what sentencing is.