It's a toughie alright. Right off the top, I have to admit to not being the globe's biggest fan of the double jeopardy clause.

It reminds me of a Dan Piraro cartoon I once saw (Bizzaro). It showed a mugger at the mouth of an alley holding a gun on a guy who is handing over his wallet. The mugger is saying, "Perhaps it will make you feel better to know that the technicality that got my conviction overturned is there to protect your rights."

If the guy did it, he should go down for it. Now, that doesn't mean the prosecution should be able to hound somebody forever dragging him/her into court. But if there is compelling evidence that justice was not done (in this case DNA evidence), perhaps the case should be allowed to be reopened.

>hahahaha..yeah I know - it was just my sorry attempt at Bush-bashing thread-drift. Still though, it seems too much like double-jeopardy. He was put on trial for it once already. Again - it would be troubling if the guy got away with it because of this technicality - but I'd rather see a bunch of guilty guys go free when they shouldn't than violate one guilty guys rights just to nail him.
>
>
>>This has nothing to do with the Bush Administration. See the link I posted. History has worked this way for many, many administrations.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=270085
>>>>>
>>>>>Read to the bottom. Most here saw the miniseries and thought he may be innocent (since there wasn't ample proof to point otherwise). Now after a book deal and a miniseries, DNA proves guilty.
>>>>
>>>>I'm really torn about this.
>>>>
>>>>As a believer in the "double-jeopardy" clause in the constitution I believe that once the military cedes jurisdiction to the state it should abide by that decision. Despite the new evidence this looks like exactly the kind of double-shot the fifth amendment was designed to guard against.
>>>>
>>>>"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
>>>>
>>>>While the armed forces seem to be exempt from this amendment it seems to me that a strong case could be made that this is only for purposes of requiring a Grand Jury indictment for a capital crime.
>>>>
>>>>There are also no qualifying statements about multiple jurisdictions concerning the restriction about "twice put in jeopardy of life..."
>>>>
>>>>On the other hand I certainly want to see justice properly done. It certainly seems proper that, if a convicted person can receive a new trial on the basis of new evidence the "state" should have the same rights. Especially if the evidence is of a type not available at the time of the original trial (like DNA as in this case).
>>>>
>>>>As I said, I'm conflicted. I'll be intereted in reading other opinions.
>>>
>>>I'm just as conflicted. I don't think they should get a double-shot at the guy. It seems like the Bill of Rights along with the rest of the Constitution are slowly being eaten under the Bush administartion. Doing this is just one more step on a very slippery slope. On the other hand - if the guy DID do it I really don't like the idea of him getting away with it either. This is a good example of where a civil suit should be filed.