The film: Swing Vote (2008), directed by Joshua Michael Stern. Not to be confused with the 1999 TV movie of the same name.
What happened: Molly (Madeline Carroll), the daughter of drunk Bud Johnson (Kevin Costner), attempts to vote in her father's name at the polling place in Texico, New Mexico (which happens to be a real place, close to the intersection of I-27 and I-40), unwittingly giving him the tie-breaking vote that will determine the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. The incumbent, Andrew Boone (Kelsey Grammer, as a smarter version of George W. Bush), has one of those walk-and-talk meetings with advisors in the corridors of the White House early on in the film. In one hallway, two Marine Corporals (both in their second enlistment) stand guard, wearing dress blue uniforms complete with the white hat. As President Boone passes by, the Marines salute and Boone returns the salute.
Why it's wrong: Despite its Army-like rank insignia, the Marine Corps is a naval service. Marines in uniform wear their hats (covers) when a) outdoors, and/or b) carrying a weapon. Marines in uniform salute only when wearing a cover, otherwise they stand at attention. This is ingrained early on in boot camp: a Marine walking around outdoors in uniform but no cover would be more embarrassed than if he was naked. Likewise for a Marine indoors wearing uniform with cover but carrying no weapon.
So the two Marine guards inside the White House, as far as I can tell, don't carry weapons, so they should not be wearing their covers. Come to think of it, why are there Marines inside the White House, guarding some random hallway? Wouldn't they be outside, guarding the entrance? And even if there are Marines inside the White House, the Secret Service would probably not let them have weapons. Remember in real life how nervous George W. Bush gets around Marines with unloaded rifles (as in Marine Boltgate 2005). Granted, Boone is a much different man from Bush: more articulate, and better educated than Bud Johnson, too. Perhaps Boone wouldn't be afraid of the Marines.
And another thing: I'm somewhat skeptical that a Corporal assigned to the White House would be in his second enlistment. A Marine good enough for a White House assignment would probably be good enough to be a Sergeant by the time he/she earns his/her first service hashmark (the one yellow stripe close to the cuffs in the dress blue uniform jacket, not part of the rank insignia, which is closer to the shoulder). In news footage I've seen Lance Corporals and Corporals at the White House. The Lance Corporal should certainly be in his first enlistment, or else he's done something to get demoted and is probably not worthy of serving at the White House. For a Corporal, this is somewhat borderline, so I suppose one second-enlistment Corporal at the White House is within the realm of possibility. Yet in Boone's White House you have not one but two Corporals in their second enlistment.
Spoiler alert: I'm not going to nitpick the plausibility of the film's basic premise. With almost two million people in New Mexico, it would be rather surreal for any election to come down to one man's vote. But then again, the 2000 presidential election being decided by the Supreme Court was quite surreal, too.
But I think this film wimps out at the end. Bud Johnson goes in to cast his tiebreaking vote, to decide between incumbent Boone and his Democratic opponent, the appropriately named Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper). Presumably, his votes for the lower offices won't matter. After Bud closes the privacy curtain, the end credits roll. His vote remains a dangling thread at the end of the film. Doesn't that weaken the message that voting matters? On the other hand, the film could have been accused of partisanship if the Bud's vote had been shown. It's a no-win situation for writers to put themselves in, I suppose.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Why would you introduce yourself to someone you already know?
The show: Scrubs
The episode: "My Cookie Pants," first aired on ABC this past Tuesday at 9:30 p.m.
What happened: As Dr. Cox considers accepting the offer to be the new Chief of Medicine at Sacred Heart, the retired Dr. Kelso tells Dr. Cox the position is not all it's cracked up to be. Dr. Cox fails to show up for the interview, to Jordan's dismay. She introduces herself to Dr. Kelso and confronts him over what he said to Cox. Kelso then talks to Cox again, revealing that he was the one who recommended Cox to the Board in the first place.
Why it doesn't quite make sense: Jordan has been on the Board for a few seasons now already. Wouldn't Dr. Kelso know Jordan already? In fact, I recall that when Jordan decided to take a temporary job helping Dr. Kelso with paperwork ("My Changing Ways," first aired May 10, 2005), Dr. Cox disliked the idea on account of having to see Jordan at the hospital more often than the monthly board meetings, which means that Dr. Kelso would also see her there more often. And didn't Dr. Kelso give Ted's office to her for the duration of that little assignment?
Of course it's possible that Jordan thinks Dr. Kelso is senile and doesn't remember her, so that's why she has to introduce herself to someone she already knows. But the most likely explanation is of course that the writers simply forgot.
Still, credit must be given to the writers for not completely forgetting what happened on this show prior to its switch from NBC to ABC: for example, the ridiculous sex buddies fanfare from an early season was replayed in a recent episode.
The episode: "My Cookie Pants," first aired on ABC this past Tuesday at 9:30 p.m.
What happened: As Dr. Cox considers accepting the offer to be the new Chief of Medicine at Sacred Heart, the retired Dr. Kelso tells Dr. Cox the position is not all it's cracked up to be. Dr. Cox fails to show up for the interview, to Jordan's dismay. She introduces herself to Dr. Kelso and confronts him over what he said to Cox. Kelso then talks to Cox again, revealing that he was the one who recommended Cox to the Board in the first place.
Why it doesn't quite make sense: Jordan has been on the Board for a few seasons now already. Wouldn't Dr. Kelso know Jordan already? In fact, I recall that when Jordan decided to take a temporary job helping Dr. Kelso with paperwork ("My Changing Ways," first aired May 10, 2005), Dr. Cox disliked the idea on account of having to see Jordan at the hospital more often than the monthly board meetings, which means that Dr. Kelso would also see her there more often. And didn't Dr. Kelso give Ted's office to her for the duration of that little assignment?
Of course it's possible that Jordan thinks Dr. Kelso is senile and doesn't remember her, so that's why she has to introduce herself to someone she already knows. But the most likely explanation is of course that the writers simply forgot.
Still, credit must be given to the writers for not completely forgetting what happened on this show prior to its switch from NBC to ABC: for example, the ridiculous sex buddies fanfare from an early season was replayed in a recent episode.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Cancel the Simpsons already!
The Simpsons used to be one of the very best shows around. But it's no longer funny. There is one important, increasingly common reason that needs to be added to the usual list of jump the shark reasons, and that is loss of continuity. With The Simpsons it means an increasingly constant rewriting of the backstory, as if no one thinks the fans will remember something that happened last week or earlier in the season, much less years ago.
I'm not the first to point out the rewritten backstory in the extremely lame episode "That 90's Show," first aired about a year ago today (KABF04) and already reran three or four times. So instead of the Be Sharps barbershop quartet (in "Homer's Barbershop Quartet," first aired September 30, 1993, years ago today, 9F21), Homer suddenly now was the leader of a grunge rock band called Sadgasm. Practically every flashback episode of the show this millennium contradicts past episodes. "That 90's Show" doesn't mesh that well either with "The Way We Was" (7F12, aired eighteen years ago today).
Another common continuity sin is to rewrite the backstory to have all the characters meet in the past. "Dangerous Curves" (November 9, 2008, KABF18) will now have us believe that Homer and Marge met Ned and Maude Flanders prior to being neighbors. Family Guy is also guilty of this sin (just one example: when Peter met Lois, was Glen Quagmire a sailor aboard an aircraft carrier, or a civilian residing in Rhode Island? There are two episodes to consider in answering this question).
I haven't forgotten that I declared that Family Guy jumped the shark with "The Man With Two Brians." But I will continue to watch Family Guy, giving the show a chance to impress me again (i.e., make me laugh). But I'm done with The Simpsons. No more new episodes for me. Do you hear that, Nielsens?
I'm not the first to point out the rewritten backstory in the extremely lame episode "That 90's Show," first aired about a year ago today (KABF04) and already reran three or four times. So instead of the Be Sharps barbershop quartet (in "Homer's Barbershop Quartet," first aired September 30, 1993, years ago today, 9F21), Homer suddenly now was the leader of a grunge rock band called Sadgasm. Practically every flashback episode of the show this millennium contradicts past episodes. "That 90's Show" doesn't mesh that well either with "The Way We Was" (7F12, aired eighteen years ago today).
Another common continuity sin is to rewrite the backstory to have all the characters meet in the past. "Dangerous Curves" (November 9, 2008, KABF18) will now have us believe that Homer and Marge met Ned and Maude Flanders prior to being neighbors. Family Guy is also guilty of this sin (just one example: when Peter met Lois, was Glen Quagmire a sailor aboard an aircraft carrier, or a civilian residing in Rhode Island? There are two episodes to consider in answering this question).
I haven't forgotten that I declared that Family Guy jumped the shark with "The Man With Two Brians." But I will continue to watch Family Guy, giving the show a chance to impress me again (i.e., make me laugh). But I'm done with The Simpsons. No more new episodes for me. Do you hear that, Nielsens?
Friday, January 16, 2009
Plot holes, changed premises and continuity errors in the moron's farewell address
This blog is supposed to be about nitpicking fictional shows, not newscasts or special news presentations. But King George W's farewell address last night made me mad not only because it pre-empted one of my favorite shows (despite its brevity) but because it so clearly showed George W. Bush's ignorance of history, fairly recent history even. It's as if his speech was written by one of those lazy sitcom writers who join the staff late in the show's run but don't bother to watch earlier episodes. (And what about Darth Cheney? Absolutely creepy and evil.)
Take, for example, when Bush said "You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made, but I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions." What tough decisions? (Plural). Name just one of those tough decisions. Bush never made any tough decisions. Do I pull the plug on my comatose father when the doctors give him a 30% chance of coming out of it? That's a tough decision. Do I accept a buyout from my job when I'm still two years shy of retirement? That's another tough decision, one which, thanks to Bush's economic policies, many middle-class Americans have had to make. The decisions Bush has made are very easy in comparison: Do I satisfy my desire to give out tax cuts? Do I gratify my desire to attack Iraq even though none of the hijackers were Iraqi? Do I give an excuse for not visiting wounded soldiers and Marines because I just don't like visiting hospitals? Do I appoint to the Supreme Court a friend with no experience as a judge? All Bush's decisions were matters of instant gratification, and each time Bush chose to gratify his desires.
Bush also reminded the people that "America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil." He doesn't know that America had gone two centuries without a terrorist attack, and that that attack took place on his watch. He's conveniently forgotten all the warnings he ignored. Osama bin Laden had wanted to knock down the World Trade Center since the 1990s. By the way, where is Osama bin Laden? So much for smoking him out. Bush said that "Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe." Yes, you did, every single morning since the day you were sworn in back in January 2001, and also through that crucial date of August 6, 2001. "America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict." Let's give him that one, for the moment. So... what exactly did Iraq do to "seek or deserve" the conflict which has killed at least twice more of their citizens than 9/11 did of ours? (I'm going off the numbers on icasualties.org). Having a bunch of empty canisters laying around is a good enough reason to bomb them.
"These are very tough times for hardworking families, but the toll would be far worse if we had not acted." And that toll would have been a lot less if you hadn't wasted your predecessor's budget surplus. Supposedly "we will show the world once again the resilience of America's free enterprise system." If it really is so resilient, why was it necessary to bail out the banks? (Remember that the money given to the automotive industry is a loan, not a bailout).
I could go on and on, but I'll just say one more thing: let's ask a rarely asked question, one which Bush himself forgot to ask last night: is our children learning? No, they isn't, not really. All the No Child Left Behind Act has accomplished is to create more headaches for teachers. Because they just didn't have enough with their huge paychecks and lack of additional duties (nurse, babysitter, etc.).
Take, for example, when Bush said "You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made, but I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions." What tough decisions? (Plural). Name just one of those tough decisions. Bush never made any tough decisions. Do I pull the plug on my comatose father when the doctors give him a 30% chance of coming out of it? That's a tough decision. Do I accept a buyout from my job when I'm still two years shy of retirement? That's another tough decision, one which, thanks to Bush's economic policies, many middle-class Americans have had to make. The decisions Bush has made are very easy in comparison: Do I satisfy my desire to give out tax cuts? Do I gratify my desire to attack Iraq even though none of the hijackers were Iraqi? Do I give an excuse for not visiting wounded soldiers and Marines because I just don't like visiting hospitals? Do I appoint to the Supreme Court a friend with no experience as a judge? All Bush's decisions were matters of instant gratification, and each time Bush chose to gratify his desires.
Bush also reminded the people that "America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil." He doesn't know that America had gone two centuries without a terrorist attack, and that that attack took place on his watch. He's conveniently forgotten all the warnings he ignored. Osama bin Laden had wanted to knock down the World Trade Center since the 1990s. By the way, where is Osama bin Laden? So much for smoking him out. Bush said that "Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe." Yes, you did, every single morning since the day you were sworn in back in January 2001, and also through that crucial date of August 6, 2001. "America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict." Let's give him that one, for the moment. So... what exactly did Iraq do to "seek or deserve" the conflict which has killed at least twice more of their citizens than 9/11 did of ours? (I'm going off the numbers on icasualties.org). Having a bunch of empty canisters laying around is a good enough reason to bomb them.
"These are very tough times for hardworking families, but the toll would be far worse if we had not acted." And that toll would have been a lot less if you hadn't wasted your predecessor's budget surplus. Supposedly "we will show the world once again the resilience of America's free enterprise system." If it really is so resilient, why was it necessary to bail out the banks? (Remember that the money given to the automotive industry is a loan, not a bailout).
I could go on and on, but I'll just say one more thing: let's ask a rarely asked question, one which Bush himself forgot to ask last night: is our children learning? No, they isn't, not really. All the No Child Left Behind Act has accomplished is to create more headaches for teachers. Because they just didn't have enough with their huge paychecks and lack of additional duties (nurse, babysitter, etc.).
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
What does he need the reindeer for?
The film: Elf (2003)
What happened: Santa's sleigh breaks down in Central Park. Apparently, its engine runs on Christmas spirit, which is somehow generated by singing Christmas carols. Buddy (Will Ferrell) does some kind of mechanical work on the engine, but that's still not enough to keep it running. What makes the difference is that Walter, Buddy's curmudgeonly father (James Caan) has suddenly gained Christmas spirit, and Santa is able to deliver all the Christmas gifts.
Why it makes no sense: If the sleigh is powered by an engine that uses Christmas spirit as a catalyst, why does Santa need reindeer to pull the sleigh? Worse, Santa still whips the reindeer! This is animal cruelty just a notch below killing an animal with no intention of eating the animal. No wonder this film doesn't have an American Humane Association certificate.
What happened: Santa's sleigh breaks down in Central Park. Apparently, its engine runs on Christmas spirit, which is somehow generated by singing Christmas carols. Buddy (Will Ferrell) does some kind of mechanical work on the engine, but that's still not enough to keep it running. What makes the difference is that Walter, Buddy's curmudgeonly father (James Caan) has suddenly gained Christmas spirit, and Santa is able to deliver all the Christmas gifts.
Why it makes no sense: If the sleigh is powered by an engine that uses Christmas spirit as a catalyst, why does Santa need reindeer to pull the sleigh? Worse, Santa still whips the reindeer! This is animal cruelty just a notch below killing an animal with no intention of eating the animal. No wonder this film doesn't have an American Humane Association certificate.
The dog with puppy videos
The show: Family Guy
The episode: "The Man With Two Brians," first aired November 9, 2008, and rerun just this past Sunday.
What happened: After Peter gets a new dog (whom he calls "new Brian"), old Brian tries to regain the affection of the family by playing his puppy video. The video shows him coming out of a basket and doing other cute puppy stuff.
Why it doesn't quite make sense: According to "Road to Rhode Island," Brian was born in a puppy mill in Texas. He was separated from his mother early on. At some point between that time and the first season of Family Guy, Brian wound up homeless on the streets of Quahog. According to "Brian: Portrait of a Dog," Brian was an adult dog when he cleaned Peter's windshield and Peter decided to adopt him.
Now, this doesn't rule out that someone would have shot puppy videos of Brian. But how exactly would Brian manage to hold on to that footage throughout his tortuous path from Texas to Rhode Island? When he was homeless, would it have been a priority for him to protect a video tape? The only explanation is that the writers have forgotten the character's backstory and thus created a continuity breach.
In a comedy, a continuity breach is forgiven if it yields a very funny joke. The bigger the breach, the funnier the joke has to be. But this continuity breach is used exclusively for the purpose of creating schmaltz, and not for a joke. With Brian's puppy videos, Family Guy has jumped the shark.
The episode: "The Man With Two Brians," first aired November 9, 2008, and rerun just this past Sunday.
What happened: After Peter gets a new dog (whom he calls "new Brian"), old Brian tries to regain the affection of the family by playing his puppy video. The video shows him coming out of a basket and doing other cute puppy stuff.
Why it doesn't quite make sense: According to "Road to Rhode Island," Brian was born in a puppy mill in Texas. He was separated from his mother early on. At some point between that time and the first season of Family Guy, Brian wound up homeless on the streets of Quahog. According to "Brian: Portrait of a Dog," Brian was an adult dog when he cleaned Peter's windshield and Peter decided to adopt him.
Now, this doesn't rule out that someone would have shot puppy videos of Brian. But how exactly would Brian manage to hold on to that footage throughout his tortuous path from Texas to Rhode Island? When he was homeless, would it have been a priority for him to protect a video tape? The only explanation is that the writers have forgotten the character's backstory and thus created a continuity breach.
In a comedy, a continuity breach is forgiven if it yields a very funny joke. The bigger the breach, the funnier the joke has to be. But this continuity breach is used exclusively for the purpose of creating schmaltz, and not for a joke. With Brian's puppy videos, Family Guy has jumped the shark.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Let's play double jeopardy
The show: JAG
The episode: "The People v. Gunny"
What happened: Gunny Galindez (Randy Vasquez) and his old war buddy (identified for most of the episode only as "Manny," but also wearing Master Sergeant's stripes when in uniform, played by Jesse Corti) leave a noodle house next to a gay bar. A gay man, Edward Proxy (Jamison Jones), innocently bumps into Manny, who immediately assumes the gay man was making a pass at him and retaliates with force. Galindez restrains Manny with the intention of defusing the conflict, but instead Edward takes the opportunity to hit Manny some more. Galindez pushes Manny back and punches Edward back, breaking his nose and blackening both his eyes. Another man comes out of the gay bar to Edward's defense, and it turns out to be Petty Officer Tiner (Chuck Carrington). Tiner is about to punch Galindez but stops when they recognize each other.
After the opening credits, the Baltimore police comes to JAG Headquarters with the intention of arresting Galindez for the gay-bashing incident the previous night. Admiral Chegwidden (John M. Jackson) will not allow that to happen, and asserts that the military judicial system will fairly ascertain Galindez's guilt or innocence. The civilians are not surprised when the judge, Captain Sebring (Corbin Bernsen) finds Galindez innocent. Soon after Galindez leaves the military courtroom, he's arrested by the Baltimore Police Department and taken off-base to be tried in a civilian courtroom for the same gay-bashing incident.
Does it make sense legally? Anyone viewing this episode attentively will be wondering "Can they really do that? Isn't it double jeopardy?" The writers (Donald Bellisario and Larry Moskowitz) anticipated this, so they have Manny visit Galindez at the civilian courtroom and ask about double jeopardy. Galindez replies that he was told that the federal government and the state government are technically two separate sovereignties and that "it's all in the Constitution." Manny is unconvinced by this, and so am I. Neither Manny nor Galindez are lawyers, and neither am I. So I could be missing something.
One can learn something about the law from TV and films, but sometimes one will run into false information. For example, in Bruce Beresford's film Double Jeopardy, a woman is tried and convicted of killing a man who is still alive. After serving some time, she is released on parole. Many people tell her that she can go ahead and kill the man she supposedly killed earlier in broad daylight and she wouldn't go to jail again. Real life lawyer Alan Dershowitz points out that in that scenario the facts of the case would be different: killing someone today is a very different crime from killing someone years ago. Furthermore, the parole board could just revoke her parole so that she serves the rest out the rest of the sentence she got in the first place (when she hadn't yet killed the man). Of course we can't use the film Double Jeopardy to nitpick JAG, but we can certainly use real life American laws.
Let's review what the Constitution actually says. The Fifth Amendment reads:
The Tenth Amendment reads in whole: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Does that mean that an individual State has the power to try someone for something a federal court has found that person innocent? Or if Galindez is found innocent in the Maryland court, could he be taken to a Virginia court, or a Washington, D. C. court, or any other state court to be tried again and again until one of those courts finds him guilty? Or is this Amendment irrelevant to this argument?
To compare an example from real life: If O. J. Simpson was found innocent by a California jury of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, could they have taken him to a federal court in the hopes that the federal jury would come up with a verdict more to their liking? His lawyers would immediately scream double jeopardy. To put O. J. Simpson in jail, he'd have to commit a different crime. Oh, wait a minute, he has (the Las Vegas robbery) and now he's going away to prison for at least a few years.
Anyway, trying Galindez a second time for the same offense is double jeopardy, even if it's in a different court. For what it's worth, that's my non-binding ruling on this fictional case. If you're a lawyer reading this, feel free to let me know if there's some legal subtlety I have overlooked here.
The episode: "The People v. Gunny"
What happened: Gunny Galindez (Randy Vasquez) and his old war buddy (identified for most of the episode only as "Manny," but also wearing Master Sergeant's stripes when in uniform, played by Jesse Corti) leave a noodle house next to a gay bar. A gay man, Edward Proxy (Jamison Jones), innocently bumps into Manny, who immediately assumes the gay man was making a pass at him and retaliates with force. Galindez restrains Manny with the intention of defusing the conflict, but instead Edward takes the opportunity to hit Manny some more. Galindez pushes Manny back and punches Edward back, breaking his nose and blackening both his eyes. Another man comes out of the gay bar to Edward's defense, and it turns out to be Petty Officer Tiner (Chuck Carrington). Tiner is about to punch Galindez but stops when they recognize each other.
After the opening credits, the Baltimore police comes to JAG Headquarters with the intention of arresting Galindez for the gay-bashing incident the previous night. Admiral Chegwidden (John M. Jackson) will not allow that to happen, and asserts that the military judicial system will fairly ascertain Galindez's guilt or innocence. The civilians are not surprised when the judge, Captain Sebring (Corbin Bernsen) finds Galindez innocent. Soon after Galindez leaves the military courtroom, he's arrested by the Baltimore Police Department and taken off-base to be tried in a civilian courtroom for the same gay-bashing incident.
Does it make sense legally? Anyone viewing this episode attentively will be wondering "Can they really do that? Isn't it double jeopardy?" The writers (Donald Bellisario and Larry Moskowitz) anticipated this, so they have Manny visit Galindez at the civilian courtroom and ask about double jeopardy. Galindez replies that he was told that the federal government and the state government are technically two separate sovereignties and that "it's all in the Constitution." Manny is unconvinced by this, and so am I. Neither Manny nor Galindez are lawyers, and neither am I. So I could be missing something.
One can learn something about the law from TV and films, but sometimes one will run into false information. For example, in Bruce Beresford's film Double Jeopardy, a woman is tried and convicted of killing a man who is still alive. After serving some time, she is released on parole. Many people tell her that she can go ahead and kill the man she supposedly killed earlier in broad daylight and she wouldn't go to jail again. Real life lawyer Alan Dershowitz points out that in that scenario the facts of the case would be different: killing someone today is a very different crime from killing someone years ago. Furthermore, the parole board could just revoke her parole so that she serves the rest out the rest of the sentence she got in the first place (when she hadn't yet killed the man). Of course we can't use the film Double Jeopardy to nitpick JAG, but we can certainly use real life American laws.
Let's review what the Constitution actually says. The Fifth Amendment reads:
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 offence 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.The words "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" seem pretty clear to me. I'm not quite so sure on whether or not the exception for "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" applies only to the need for a grand jury indictment, or if that exception applies to the rest of the clauses in the Amendment. Because if that's the case, then the writers are wrong to have Galindez arrested by the Baltimore police and Chegwidden not once complain about double jeopardy in open court.
The Tenth Amendment reads in whole: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Does that mean that an individual State has the power to try someone for something a federal court has found that person innocent? Or if Galindez is found innocent in the Maryland court, could he be taken to a Virginia court, or a Washington, D. C. court, or any other state court to be tried again and again until one of those courts finds him guilty? Or is this Amendment irrelevant to this argument?
To compare an example from real life: If O. J. Simpson was found innocent by a California jury of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, could they have taken him to a federal court in the hopes that the federal jury would come up with a verdict more to their liking? His lawyers would immediately scream double jeopardy. To put O. J. Simpson in jail, he'd have to commit a different crime. Oh, wait a minute, he has (the Las Vegas robbery) and now he's going away to prison for at least a few years.
Anyway, trying Galindez a second time for the same offense is double jeopardy, even if it's in a different court. For what it's worth, that's my non-binding ruling on this fictional case. If you're a lawyer reading this, feel free to let me know if there's some legal subtlety I have overlooked here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)