Daniel Penny, Not Guilty!

Ace was first with the news, at least for me, in red italics with the trademark flaming skull, Verdict: Daniel Penny Is Not Guilty of Anything. Liberal rent-a-mobs protest.

BREAKING: Daniel Penny found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. Protests erupt outside of courthouse in reaction to the verdict. pic.twitter.com/rWMKPWfMEj

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 9, 2024

And in response to commenters wondering if Bragg would go back after him on the dismissed Manslaughter charge:

Update: Some commenters are saying he could still be re-tried on the count of manslaughter 2 that was dismissed (on the motion of the prosecution) on Friday. No. Once a jury is empaneled, double jeopardy attaches. A mistrial can be retried because it's a mistrial -- no true trial occurred, as no verdict was rendered -- but once the jury is empaneled, a dismissal is a dismissal with prejudice. He's free and clear on these charges forever.

Also, he's free and clear on these facts. In other words, the prosecutors cannot take the same facts at trial here and spin out another new charge. They are barred from bringing up new charges based on the same facts if they could have brought them up in a prior trial. They cannot now say "we're charging him for aggravated battery." That charge would arise from the same facts here. They've had their bite at this particular apple, they don't get another one.

They may try to find some other facts they can make charges on to persecute him, but he is now free and clear on these charges and any other charges arising from these facts.

Update to my update: I just remembered, prosecutors unfortunately can try some bullsh*t where they bring a "violation of civil rights" charge. The feds did that with the cops in the LA riots case. That was ruled not to be based on the "same facts" as the original charges were.

I don't expect them to do that but I guess they could. I imagine that Penny would try to dismiss these charges citing double jeopardy, but I don't know if the case law would be on his side.

I'm a little surprised. If a conviction on manslaughter had enough support to hang the jury, how did a lesser charge get a unanimous not guilty? Were there just a few holdouts who finally saw the light of day, or just wanted to go home?