Dan Epps

I'm not sure this is a constitutional argument or just a policy argument or what, but, but there's a way in which, you know, the felony thing was doing some important work and we've sort of lost the work it was supposed to do.

Or a much bigger universe of crimes to which the misdemeanor, if we changed it, it would be a bigger, but yeah.

Or a much bigger universe of crimes to which the misdemeanor, if we changed it, it would be a bigger, but yeah.

There are tons of felonies out there. And then we also have a rule, as it's Devin Peck versus Alfred, that you can decide later that the thing you arrested somebody for is not the thing you said you're arresting them for at the time. Yeah.

There are tons of felonies out there. And then we also have a rule, as it's Devin Peck versus Alfred, that you can decide later that the thing you arrested somebody for is not the thing you said you're arresting them for at the time. Yeah.

If you later realize you had a probable cause to arrest them for some felony you'd never heard of that you find in the statute books, that's good enough to support the arrest. So I do wonder. It's actually kind of amazing this ever comes up. It's amazing there's ever somebody who can't later retcon them into probable cause for a felony. But some people are really law-abiding, I guess.

If you later realize you had a probable cause to arrest them for some felony you'd never heard of that you find in the statute books, that's good enough to support the arrest. So I do wonder. It's actually kind of amazing this ever comes up. It's amazing there's ever somebody who can't later retcon them into probable cause for a felony. But some people are really law-abiding, I guess.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. Well, I feel like what the district court, this is interesting, because what the district court did is a little ambiguous, right? Yeah. The court says, a dismissal of this case is not meant to criticize the work done by the prosecution. There is simply a lack of evidence on which to convict the defendant. Okay, that sounds like a lack of evidence. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, I feel like what the district court, this is interesting, because what the district court did is a little ambiguous, right? Yeah. The court says, a dismissal of this case is not meant to criticize the work done by the prosecution. There is simply a lack of evidence on which to convict the defendant. Okay, that sounds like a lack of evidence. Yeah.

Without new evidence, the result of this case will be the same as the successive trial. Now there is new evidence. Right. And the result has not been an acquittal, of course. The result has been a hang. Due to the lack of evidence in this case, a jury will never be able to reach a unanimous verdict or guilty. It appears that justice would best be served if the charges were dismissed.

Without new evidence, the result of this case will be the same as the successive trial. Now there is new evidence. Right. And the result has not been an acquittal, of course. The result has been a hang. Due to the lack of evidence in this case, a jury will never be able to reach a unanimous verdict or guilty. It appears that justice would best be served if the charges were dismissed.

And I get the court's thinking. It's like, technically, there's enough evidence that if a jury voted to convict, I wouldn't set it aside. It's not that it would be illegal for a jury to convict to the basis of the evidence. But realistically, we're just going to keep hanging this case over and over again, and I don't want to do it. Now, I'm not sure...

And I get the court's thinking. It's like, technically, there's enough evidence that if a jury voted to convict, I wouldn't set it aside. It's not that it would be illegal for a jury to convict to the basis of the evidence. But realistically, we're just going to keep hanging this case over and over again, and I don't want to do it. Now, I'm not sure...

And as a matter of state law, apparently that's a thing as a judge you can do because there's an interest of justice standard. But where to put that in the double jeopardy box is interesting.

And as a matter of state law, apparently that's a thing as a judge you can do because there's an interest of justice standard. But where to put that in the double jeopardy box is interesting.

Right. I think it's in the future. Okay.

Right. I think it's in the future. Okay.

Yeah. Okay.