Will Bode

Yeah. That makes a certain amount of sense. Now that, you know, Here would mean that there's a much smaller universe of crimes to which this rule would apply to. Right.

Yeah. That makes a certain amount of sense. Now that, you know, Here would mean that there's a much smaller universe of crimes to which this rule would apply to. Right.

Yeah, if we adopted that argument. Yeah, I'm saying if we don't, if we just go with the kind of what is the label, there's not that many – there's fewer – Right.

Yeah, if we adopted that argument. Yeah, I'm saying if we don't, if we just go with the kind of what is the label, there's not that many – there's fewer – Right.

Yeah. Okay. Another one from Justice Sotomayor I also found interesting, if I can find this one. Woodward versus California. This is the Double Jeopardy one? This question is basically, you know, there are things – so if you get acquitted, if you get 100% acquitted, right, the state cannot later come back and retry you.

Yeah. Okay. Another one from Justice Sotomayor I also found interesting, if I can find this one. Woodward versus California. This is the Double Jeopardy one? This question is basically, you know, there are things – so if you get acquitted, if you get 100% acquitted, right, the state cannot later come back and retry you.

But the question is there are certain kinds of – things that a court might do that maybe aren't labeled acquittal, but maybe they still have the same function of being an acquittal. So something could be a dismissal and yet nonetheless be an acquittal. The rule, as I taught it and understood it, is basically whether the order resolves

But the question is there are certain kinds of – things that a court might do that maybe aren't labeled acquittal, but maybe they still have the same function of being an acquittal. So something could be a dismissal and yet nonetheless be an acquittal. The rule, as I taught it and understood it, is basically whether the order resolves

some or all of the elements in the defendant's favor, some of the elements of the offense. So basically it's kind of like, is this about kind of saying there's not enough evidence, something like that, something in that vicinity. It doesn't have to be correct. That has to be what it's about rather than I'm dismissing because prosecution

some or all of the elements in the defendant's favor, some of the elements of the offense. So basically it's kind of like, is this about kind of saying there's not enough evidence, something like that, something in that vicinity. It doesn't have to be correct. That has to be what it's about rather than I'm dismissing because prosecution

needs more time, prosecutorial misconduct, all sorts of other things that are not about basically the proof, the elements of the offense. And here, this California case, defendant was tried twice for murder. Both times, majority of voters wanted to acquit, but the jury ends up And then the trial court relies on this California state law procedure that allows a dismissal.

needs more time, prosecutorial misconduct, all sorts of other things that are not about basically the proof, the elements of the offense. And here, this California case, defendant was tried twice for murder. Both times, majority of voters wanted to acquit, but the jury ends up And then the trial court relies on this California state law procedure that allows a dismissal.

And sort of says in doing that, well, absent new evidence, the prosecution would be unable to meet its burden of proof in subsequent trials. Dismissing would further the interests of justice, et cetera, et cetera. And so basically, long story short, the state courts have said, applying their own state law rule, this is – not an acquittal.

And sort of says in doing that, well, absent new evidence, the prosecution would be unable to meet its burden of proof in subsequent trials. Dismissing would further the interests of justice, et cetera, et cetera. And so basically, long story short, the state courts have said, applying their own state law rule, this is – not an acquittal.

The argument here is, well, there's a federal definition of what constitutes an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes. I think that's correct and that this qualifies as an acquittal because they came back nearly three decades later after getting some DNA and now want to retry this guy. which is kind of crazy. It's kind of a very unusual situation. It's an amazing posture.

The argument here is, well, there's a federal definition of what constitutes an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes. I think that's correct and that this qualifies as an acquittal because they came back nearly three decades later after getting some DNA and now want to retry this guy. which is kind of crazy. It's kind of a very unusual situation. It's an amazing posture.

And so she says, well, it doesn't make sense to grant this one because this argument was not presented to the California Court of Appeal. before it issued its opinion and was only raised in the California Supreme Court.

And so she says, well, it doesn't make sense to grant this one because this argument was not presented to the California Court of Appeal. before it issued its opinion and was only raised in the California Supreme Court.

But she says she concurs and encourages the California Supreme Court to address the question of whether the state law precedent can be reconciled with this court's federal jeopardy precedent. When would they do that, though? This is just a denial. It's not being remanded, right? Yeah.

But she says she concurs and encourages the California Supreme Court to address the question of whether the state law precedent can be reconciled with this court's federal jeopardy precedent. When would they do that, though? This is just a denial. It's not being remanded, right? Yeah.