in

The Whitmer Fednapping Case and Retrial After a Hung Jury | What Is Double Jeopardy?

My prior videos on the Whitmer ‘kidnapping plot’: https://youtu.be/lTHZlIJs6mo
https://youtu.be/QHjgvQxpcgk

Support my channel:
On my website: http://www.mattchristiansenmedia.com/support
Or SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/matt-christiansen
Merch shop: https://www.mattchristiansenmedia.com/shop

Deals on cool stuff from listener-owned businesses: http://www.mattchristiansenmedia.com/deals

Contact/social media:
Email: matt@mattchristiansenmedia.com
Website: http://www.mattchristiansenmedia.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/MLChristiansen
Minds: http://www.minds.com/MLChristiansen
Gab: http://www.gab.ai/MLChristiansen
Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/MLChristiansen

Alternative video platforms:
BitChute: http://www.bitchute.com/mlchristiansen
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/MLChristiansen
Odysee: https://odysee.com/@MLChristiansen
lbry.tv: https://lbry.tv/@MLChristiansen
Utreon: https://utreon.com/c/mattchristiansen/

Live streams:
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/skagg3
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/MLChristiansen
Odysee: https://odysee.com/@MLChristiansen
DLive: http://www.dlive.tv/mlchristiansen

My podcast on demand: http://bit.ly/1TUcepj
Apple Podcasts: http://apple.co/23YM9rM
Google Podcasts: https://bit.ly/3pHoVIv
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2WjdqLl
Stitcher: http://bit.ly/1TlubhE
Podbean: https://bit.ly/39qjTvf

Music by Chris Gard, Morbicae Official: https://bit.ly/2GrOAnv
‘This Is Your Name’ outro song: https://bit.ly/37CqGQi
Susan Wicky Wicky outro song: https://youtu.be/ESkfJe44W-E

Items referenced:
Two Men Convicted in Plot to Kidnap Michigan’s Governor: https://archive.ph/cJrPs
Whitmer kidnap plot: 2 men acquitted, hung jury for 2 more: https://bit.ly/3pUMBM3
Fifth Amendment text: https://bit.ly/3R5vh2O
Charges will be refiled after trial for 2 kidnapping plot suspects ended with mistrials: https://bit.ly/3Th3K01
US v Perez: https://bit.ly/3R3F1e2
Retrial After a Hung Jury: the Double Jeopardy Problem: https://bit.ly/3AwO28q
US v Gilbert: https://bit.ly/3TslLsg
Crist v Bretz: https://bit.ly/3e63wbS
Downum v US: https://bit.ly/3e9Hy7H
Jeopardy legal definition: https://bit.ly/3KtpAt4
Green v US: https://bit.ly/3dZxxtL
Arizona v Washington: https://bit.ly/3pUw1Mv

Written by Matt Christiansen

I thought you were bigger for some reason. -Anonymous review of my channel

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Matt, I get why you didn’t go to law school, because I did and I hated every second of it, but man I wish you were fighting this fight in the courtroom. There are any number of legal freedom enterprises that would be lucky to have you.

  2. I think jeopardy is initiated the moment an individual is formally charged with an offence. Should a verdict be determined or the charges dropped, as the state no longer desires to prosecute or a plea agreement is reached, then jeopardy is finalised and no further legal action could occur for the same offence. It should be mandatory that if a person is charged they have a fundamental right to be judged by a jury of their peers. Should their peers not come to a unanimous decision that the person is guilty of the charge then they should walk free as not guilty. A lack of unanimous jury agreement should not be a mistrial. Further, if a person is charged with an offence and a trial determines there was no basis for the charge then the state should be liable to compensate the charged person and action should be taken against the prosecutors who brought the charge,

  3. In my mind, a hung jury equates to the prosecution not proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt and is the same as a not guilty. The state should not get a second bite at the apple…

  4. I’ve always had a legal problem with a jury “finding” the accused “not guilty” because the accused was already, by presumption, “not guilty” until proven otherwise. It seems to imagine that the jury determines both guilt and innocence, when innocence is/should already be presumed at the beginning of the trial. Therefore, the jury should only have the burden of determining “guilt”. If they cannot do that, then the presumption of innocence simply remains.
    So, in conclusion, there should be no such thing as a “hung jury”. And if the courts insist on keeping it, a hung jury should be the same as an innocent “finding” per se.

  5. You have to get more subs/views.
    Your logic, argument layout, and depth is the best conservative voice on YT. You've honestly helped my thought processes instead of simply informing me on a topic or issue.

  6. In the Judeo-Christian worldview there is an ultimate judgement when anyone who got away with something in life will have to 'give an account ' to God, it's an acceptance that the human judicial system is not perfect and it is better to err on the side of presumed innocence. In the secular worldview the one chance you have to get someone is here and now and the guilty must be punished at all costs even if that means that sometimes innocent people get punished – hence cancel culture; supreme court nominees having their youth or belief dragged over; ex presidents being accused etc

  7. Are we really going to fall for the fake billionaire populist psyop again in Trump (Zionist shill)?

    • Banned bump stocks by executive order.
    • Approved of red-flag gun laws without due process.
    • Assigned Fauci and Birx to Covid-19 task force to fuel fear and lies about Covid-19.
    • Started the emergency lockdowns on non-essential small businesses for Prep Act countermeasures.
    • Rubber stamped Operation Warp Speed for rushed experimental vaccines with no long-term safety data in humans.
    • Signed executive order 13887 to support Big Pharma vaccines for financial backing.
    • Pardoned an Israeli Mossad spy instead of Julian Assange.
    • Funded liberal governors with incentives for masks, ventilators, testing and restricting freedom of movement with Big Pharma appointed HHS director.
    • Did not indict the Clinton crime family as promised.
    • Facilitated Big Pharma regulatory capture at the CDC, FDA and NIH.

  8. I think we can rest assured that the FBI is the most trustworthy of all government organizations, and their recent behavior only furthers the trust that it deserves.
    Hear that, Director Ray?

  9. Well that didn't sound like a very amateur analysis to me.
    I think you're 100% correct. The defendant walks into that courtroom an innocent man, and if the prosecutor fails to secure a unanimous verdict from the jury, he should walk out of there a free man.

    Tie goes to the defendant. Better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be locked up.

  10. So basically, the Federal Government is saying that if eleven jurors say a defendant is innocent, but just one juror is adamant in a guilty verdict, they can retry the defendant.
    If the same thing happens at the second trial, they get a third crack at it Then a fourth, and a fifth, and so on until they get their conviction and can pop open the Champaign.
    Sadly, under this Administration, I can see it happening. The Fed conviction rate is going to rise from ridiculous to inconceivable.

  11. Even if you made mistakes in your research, just the way you laid out your disclaimer and how you delivered your video is so careful, so responsible. It's absolutely everything we need in the media and how we as a society navigate this fire hose of information we get on a daily basis. Thank you.

    I wonder if you could do a collab with a legal YouTuber…. Maybe Rikieta Law?!

  12. It's very simple.

    Double jeopardy only applies after a verdict. Once a verdict has been handed down, it cannot be retried. This means the state cannot continue to try you until they get the verdict they want. BUT until that verdict is reached they can continue to try you UNTIL A verdict is reached.

    You may not like it, but that's the way the law works. Don't like the law? Change the law.

  13. I’d be interested in a discussion about jury nullification, I wonder if that’s what happened here. That aside how legally proper is jury nullification in unjust or hostile prosecution cases?

  14. the USC has been erroded since all the signatures ink dried. Definitions and interpretation is in the hands of those in positions authority. Is congress going to interfer with judical? No. It benfits them because they can always ask what is is?

  15. Aren't we are all presumed innocent unless found guilty?

    If there is the presumption of innocence, then, perforce, a hung jury is not a failure to find someone innocent; it's a failure to find someone guilty. AKA, "not guilty".

  16. The courts have held — long before this case — that a 'hung-jury' does not prevent re-trial, because the "jeopardy" that a person is in for the second trial is merely a continuation of the first jeopardy.

    Or another way of looking at it is that the first trial didn't conclude — there was literally no conclusion.

    This is pretty standard stuff as far as law is concerned, so it sucks that it's being questioned in conjunction with this case. And to be clear, I believe the FBI was crooked as can be on this particular case, so I'm not taking their side.

  17. you always have great videos, but this one seems to me to be the most important one ever. i've always thought retrying was a violation of double-jeopardy, but you put in the work and have the receipts proving that it is. kudos, sir

  18. Thank you. I've always considered this subject; continual retrials, to be manifestly unfair, even where I've fully believed in the subjects guilt. It simply doesn't address the power and resource imbalance upon the accused.

  19. Here's another question about legalities. Why would this case be tried federally in the 1st place? Maybe that actually is what the Consideration actually states. But, even though the "investigation" was conducted by the FBI*, why was that the case? Shouldn't this have been a situation that should have been treated from start to finish by agents from the state of Michigan?🤷‍♂️
    *Conducted by the FBI=Completely thought out/carried out/gas-lighted by the FBI.🙄

  20. My opinion has been that anything other than twelve guilty votes is an acquittal. I'm not even sure I believe the state should ever be allowed to appeal a jurry's decision – or lack thereof, in this case. Either way, whatever the legalities are, i think it's morally wrong to bring charges again after a mistrial.

  21. but then again they tried to put Kyle through their delusion ringer – they're too stupid to know what the term 'backlash' is – they are whores servicing their government paycheck and fat pensions without discernment …..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading…

0