Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mississippi Man Tried for Sixth Time for Same Crime

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 11:53 AM
Original message
Mississippi Man Tried for Sixth Time for Same Crime
Mississippi Man Tried for Sixth Time for Same Crime


So much for double jeopardy. The provision in law that forbids an individual from being tried twice for the same crime has not applied to Curtis Flowers. The African-American man is now facing his sixth trial for allegedly killing four people at a furniture store in Winona, Mississippi, on July 16, 1996. The victims, the owner, two white employees and one black employee, were shot executive-style with bullets in the back of the head. Flowers, who had worked at the store for three days in July, was charged with the crime the following January. Prosecutors claimed that he was angry because money had been deducted from his paycheck for damaged merchandise.

The murder weapon was never recovered, and no fingerpring of DNA evidence was found linking Flowers to the crime. Flowers had no criminal record.

According to Truthout, the half dozen attempts by prosecutors to convict Flowers of the murders is a record for the American judicial system. He’s been held in jail since 1997, and gone to trial in 1997, 1999, 2004, 2007, 2008 and now 2010. His five previous trials ended either in hung juries or overturned convictions. The first two times, Flowers was found guilty, but his convictions were overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

At the 2008 trial, one of the three black jurors, a retired teacher named James Bibbs, refused to convict Flowers and was charged with perjury for failing to reveal that he had been near the scene of the crime on the day the murders took place, but the charges were later dropped.

http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Mississippi_Man_Tried_for_Sixth_Time_for_Same_Crime_100612
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. Doesn't this violate the double jeopardy rule?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. I especially liked that they were prosecuting jurors in the fifth trial. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gaedel Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. Not double jeopardy unless he is acquitted--nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. Shot executive style?
Can we use that on BP executives?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuvNewcastle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. LOL!
I was thinking that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slampoet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It's either that or bring back tar and feathers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. Jeez, the author was wrong in his very first sentence.
And in his second one, too. You'd think he'd make a point to correctly define double jeopardy before writing an article premised on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. Pretty sure it's only "double jeopardy" if one of those trials resulted in
him being found "not guilty". Hung juries and 'found guilty, which was overturned by the Supreme Court" don't really meet those definitions.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't be sure of that, but they try people all the time a second time when there's a hung jury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. unrec for bad/erroneous info in article nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC