The Arkansas State charged Alex Blueford petitioner with a capital murder associated with a minor’s death of one year. The charges involved lesser offenses like negligent homicide, manslaughter, and murder of first-degree. Before the deliberations commencement, the trial court ordered the jury to regard crimes as having a reasonable doubt on defendant's guilt concerning capital murder charge where capital murder might be considered as a first degree. Also, manslaughter charges might be applied or present negligent homicide charges. The court submitted to jury verdict forms set that enabled him to convict Blueford based on charged offenses, and either acquit Blueford with all offenses. The acquitting of some batteries leaving others was deemed as a bad option.
After deliberating, Jury explained that the verdict was not reached. The court questioned the progress of the jury on every offense. This led to foreperson to disclose that jury unanimously was the guilt of the capital murder charges, and murder of first-degree was tied on manslaughter where the vote did not involve negligent homicide. The court ordered the jury to proceed in deliberation (Cornell University law school, 2011). The jury continued, but no verdict was reached leading to court to declare the mistrial. As the state often sought in retrying Blueford, the petition took a step in the dismissal of first-degree and capital murder charges on the grounds of double jeopardy. The trial court rejected the motion where Arkansas supreme court affirmed the appeal on interlocutory.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Double Jeopardy sentence cannot bar retrying of Blueford about the charges of capital murder and first degree (Cornell University law school, 2011). The jury could not exonerate Blueford on capital murder. Blueford argues that report of foreperson which jury was undisputed against guilty of murder offenses signifies a degree of some or entire elements of these felonies in his support. However, this report was not final ruling of anything. When foreperson told a court on how the jury voted on each crime, jury's consideration had not so far been completed. The jurors went back to the jury room to deliberate on it further, and there was nothing in court to instructions to prevent them from reviewing their votes on first degree and capital murder as they continued with deliberations (Cornell University law school, 2011). The foreperson's report before the end of ruling thus, lacking finality necessary in amounting to exoneration on these crimes. That similar lacking of finality weakens Blueford's dependence on United States v. Green and Georgia V. Price. In all of these cases, the ruling of the jury was the final decision thus the foreperson report was not.
About USA Supreme Court, case Continental Casualty v. Commonwealth for case law investigation on concepts of judicial. This court heard the point of view on Mr. Black conveyed an opinion of a court. The Continental Casualty was sued by Commonwealth Coatings a petitioner, on a prime bond of the contractor to recuperate money because of painting job. Commonwealth Coatings selected his arbitrator, and prime contractor decided on another contractor and two arbitrators picked third. (Cornell University law school, 2011) The 3rd arbitrator was a consultant engineer who had offered occasional services on prime contractor within a period of 4 to 5 years. The prime contractor paid about 12000 USD in fees on individual throughout referenced period. A petitioner disputed arbitration award on the basis that prime contractor who failed to reveal this correlation until after award. Appeals Court affirmed District Court's negation to put aside the award.
Conclusion
As permitted by Arkansas law, jury's options of this case were restricted to two by either criminal on one of the crimes, or exonerate on all. The trial court could not abuse their judgment by declining to add other option, which is acquitting of some crimes but leave others.
Reference
Cornell University law school. (2011). BLUEFORD v. ARKANSAS. Supreme Court , 8 (3), 1-565. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1320
