Eric's Law Violates the 5th and 6th Amendments

This post is in opposition to a proposed law entitled “Eric’s Law.”

It would allow a second jury, or capital jury, to be impaneled in the trial of a defendant that is found guilty of a capital crime, but the trial jury did not come to a unanimous decision on the death penalty.

The capital jury would decide if the death penalty should be imposed since the trial jury couldn’t conclude about the punishment.

Here is the link: Eric’s Law

To start, both the 5^th and 6^th amendments are presented. 

5^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

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; (1) 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.

6^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; (2) to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

First, reference 1 from the 5^th amendment.

(1)          nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

The proposed law is an attempt to get a death penalty verdict when the trial jury cannot fully agree on the death penalty.

If that is in doubt, when the bill was introduced, its sponsor, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) stated:

 “…would allow a new jury to be impaneled if a first jury does not reach a unanimous decision on a defendant’s [capital punishment] sentence…”

It means, if the trial jury doesn’t hand down a capital punishment decision, then the prosecutors get to try again.

This would be placing the accused in “jeopardy of life or limb” a second time for the same offense.

The accused would need to make a defense a second time, violating the intent of the 5^th amendment.

But, sense the accused can’t be placed on trial again because of the nasty 5^th amendment, they will seat another jury and not retry.

This is just what would happen in Pre-Constitutional times in America. 

If England could not get the verdict it wanted, or if the jury did not issue the punishment they wanted, they tried again and again.

In the end, the same jury that hears the case, the trial jury, should be the only jury that both judges the case and the decision on the accused’s fate.

Now, reference 2 from the 6^th amendment.

(2)          to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor

The trial jury would have the benefit of hearing from witnesses on both sides of the argument.

The trial jury would see and hear the evidence, which is presumed, the capital jury would also have access to the same evidence. 

But the trial jury would have a benefit that is doubtful the capital jury would have. 

The trial jury would have the benefit of looking into the eyes of the people that are witnesses and making judgments on their character.

If indeed, the capital jury did have access to those witnesses again, it would clearly be a second trial and violate the 5^th amendment.

So, the capital jury would not be allowed to hear from those witnesses.

The capital jury would only be allowed to review the trial transcripts.

This process of seeing and hearing from the witnesses is not only important in deciding on the guilt of the accused but also the punishment, if any, the accused should receive.

The capital jury will not have the benefit of both seeing and hearing the evidence directly from the witnesses, missing the character analysis. 

This process will be violating the clause of the 6^th amendment above referenced as number 2.

The proposed, “Eric’s Law” is a sham and should be seen for that. 

It violates a 5^th amendment clause that a person should not be place on trial twice for the same crime.

Additionally, it violates a clause in the 6^th amendment that witnesses should be presented on both sides of the argument. 

This law is an attempt to get a capital punishment verdict, no matter what the jury that heard the case decides.