Dan Epps

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.

Yeah. Okay.

That might be.

That might be.

Yeah, but only two interested cases.

Yeah, but only two interested cases.

Justice Thomas also has this interesting argument that maybe Hill's already been overruled by Dobbs.

Justice Thomas also has this interesting argument that maybe Hill's already been overruled by Dobbs.

And it's interesting because there's a whole list of things like that. There are a bunch of third-party standing cases, several of these I remember thinking about when I was working on a FedCourts casebook. That's sort of like, to what extent, you know, Dobbs, you have this weird FedCourts doctrine that some people think is a special thing for abortion cases.

And it's interesting because there's a whole list of things like that. There are a bunch of third-party standing cases, several of these I remember thinking about when I was working on a FedCourts casebook. That's sort of like, to what extent, you know, Dobbs, you have this weird FedCourts doctrine that some people think is a special thing for abortion cases.