Jolly

[KYPack]

www.rotoworld.com

Packers DE Johnny Jolly was indicted on drug possession charges for a second time Tuesday.

Charges were dropped back in July, but that was dependent on evidence. The authorities have since obtained new equipment that measures the amount of codeine Jolly had in his possession. A trial date has not yet been scheduled.
S
source: Green Bay Press-Gazette

Double jeopardy?

The charges were dismissed back then without prejudice. That means they can be refiled.

There is no way in hell I thought these charges would be re-filed. Houston dismissed a gun charge and weed possession against his former co-defendants. The original charge was possession with intent to distribute. There is no way this is a distribution case. The lads were partying, not selling. This is barely enough lean for Jolly & they boys to get a good buzz.

Jolly is getting hosed here, but he will basically get out of it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

www.rotoworld.com

Packers DE Johnny Jolly was indicted on drug possession charges for a second time Tuesday.

Charges were dropped back in July, but that was dependent on evidence. The authorities have since obtained new equipment that measures the amount of codeine Jolly had in his possession. A trial date has not yet been scheduled.
S
source: Green Bay Press-Gazette

Double jeopardy?

I think you have to be go to trail twice for it to be double jeopardy.

You can go to trial twice like the NBA dude who shot that driver guy. You can't be found not guilty and then be re-tried. The Skinbasket should be able to explain this.

Umm, factually incorrect.

[mraynrand]

Too bad it didn't happen in Minnesota. Drug possession isn't illegal there.

Drug use isn't illegal there.

Drug use? I'm not sure that's even a crime anymore. There have been a lot of changes.

[Guiness]

Re-filed these charges? Seems like overkill to me.

You have to think he pissed in someone's cornflakes, or someone is hotdogging, looking to get noticed by 'being tough' with an NFL player.

Is it an election year for in Texas or something?

[red]

here's florio's take. dude was a lawyer up until about a year ago, so he should know a thing or two about jeopardy

Jolly indicted again on drug charges
Posted by Mike Florio on December 15, 2009 11:00 PM ET
In July, Packers defensive tackle Johnny Jolly was scheduled to stand trial on felony drug charges in Houston.

A day before the trial commenced, prosecutors dropped the charges. But the plan, as stated at the time, was to eventually seek a new indictment of Jolly.

That new indictment came today.

Authorities arrested Jolly in July 2008 for possession of at least 200 milligrams of codeine, the active ingredient in cough syrup that routinely is mixed with soda to make a potent intoxicant.

The dismissal arose from the ability of the police to properly measure the amount of codeine in the liquid seized from Jolly's alleged possession at the time.

We suspect that some of you will invoke the Constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Your instincts generally are accurate, but jeopardy does not "attach" untl the trial begins. If the trial doesn't begin, there can be no double jeopardy because there never was a single jeopardy.

The only limitation, then, is the statute of limitations applicable to the charges that will be pursued.

[Zool]

Too bad it didn't happen in Minnesota. Drug possession isn't illegal there.

Drug use isn't illegal there.

Drug use? I'm not sure that's even a crime anymore. There have been a lot of changes.

I'll take a bloody mary, a steak sandwich......and a steak sandwich.

[denverYooper]

Too bad it didn't happen in Minnesota. Drug possession isn't illegal there.

Drug use isn't illegal there.

Drug use? I'm not sure that's even a crime anymore. There have been a lot of changes.

I'll take a bloody mary, a steak sandwich......and a steak sandwich.

In the court ruling US vs. Fishbine, a man subjected to potential incineration while wearing another man's suit is entitled to $10,000 worth of airline tickets. It's an obscure ruling, but a very important one to me.

[SkinBasket]

www.rotoworld.com

Packers DE Johnny Jolly was indicted on drug possession charges for a second time Tuesday.

Charges were dropped back in July, but that was dependent on evidence. The authorities have since obtained new equipment that measures the amount of codeine Jolly had in his possession. A trial date has not yet been scheduled.
S
source: Green Bay Press-Gazette

Double jeopardy?

I think you have to be go to trail twice for it to be double jeopardy.

You can go to trial twice like the NBA dude who shot that driver guy. You can't be found not guilty and then be re-tried. The Skinbasket should be able to explain this.

Umm, factually incorrect.

Ty is right. I cannot explain this. Mainly that someone down there has such a hard on to prosecute a guy for putting cough syrup in his soda.

[swede]

Ty is right. I cannot explain this. Mainly that someone down there has such a hard on to prosecute a guy for putting cough syrup in his soda.

[Noodle]

I'm not sure why Ty thinks SC is factually inaccurate unless there's something about the basketball player story that SC got wrong.

I think it works like this (subject to Skinbasket review):

If a jury finds you not guilty of doing x, then you can't be retried for doing x by the same sovereign.

If a jury hangs, without finding you guilty or not guilty, then the sovereign can re-try you (good friggin' luck).

Here, as others have noted, there is no double jeopardy issue because Jolly never went to trial.

But some prosecutor is sure looking to make a name for himself.

[Patler]

Double Jeopardy occurs during the second part of the show, when the values on the board are twice as much! It is followed by "Final Jeopardy" when the players are allowed to designate their own wager.

[Freak Out]

Remember what State were talking about here guys.

[MadScientist]

There's one change, the amount is now 200 milligrams, not 200 grams. How 200 milligrams is worth 20 years, I have no idea.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm not sure why Ty thinks SC is factually inaccurate unless there's something about the basketball player story that SC got wrong.

I think it works like this (subject to Skinbasket review):

If a jury finds you not guilty of doing x, then you can't be retried for doing x by the same sovereign.

If a jury hangs, without finding you guilty or not guilty, then the sovereign can re-try you (good friggin' luck).

Here, as others have noted, there is no double jeopardy issue because Jolly never went to trial.

But some prosecutor is sure looking to make a name for himself.

Yes. Scott got it wrong.

Jayson Williams was put on trial with several different charges. They jury found him not guilty on some,but was deadlocked on reckless manslaughter (or something like that). Deadlocked means they never reached a conclusion....just a mistrial would result in the same situation.

Williams was/is going to be in court on that charge. So, it is far from double jeopardy.

[Patler]

I'm not sure why Ty thinks SC is factually inaccurate unless there's something about the basketball player story that SC got wrong.

I think it works like this (subject to Skinbasket review):

If a jury finds you not guilty of doing x, then you can't be retried for doing x by the same sovereign.

If a jury hangs, without finding you guilty or not guilty, then the sovereign can re-try you (good friggin' luck).

Here, as others have noted, there is no double jeopardy issue because Jolly never went to trial.

But some prosecutor is sure looking to make a name for himself.

Yes. Scott got it wrong.

Jayson Williams was put on trial with several different charges. They jury found him not guilty on some,but was deadlocked on reckless manslaughter (or something like that). Deadlocked means they never reached a conclusion....just a mistrial would result in the same situation.

Williams was/is going to be in court on that charge. So, it is far from double jeopardy.

I still don't see what Scott had wrong. You explanation does not identify any error in what he stated, based on my understanding of what he stated. In fact, his statement and your "explanation" seem to be consistent based on the case. You seem to be picking a fight that isn't there.