Mychal Bell and Double Jeopardy

Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment states, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This is an ancient concern and, of course, the Greeks and the Romans take credit for its emergence as a legal rule.
This constitutional provision is concerned principally with the prohibition against a second criminal prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal; it also prohibits a subsequent prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and it prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.
Mychal Bell, a minor, was prosecuted and convicted in adult court in Jena, LA for aggravated assault and battery by an all-white jury, a hostile prosecutor and a biased judge. This was June 2007. On or about September 14, 2007, an intermediate appeals court found that not only was Bell convicted on insufficient evidence but also that the adult court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Bell.
Bell was sent back to Jena Juvenile Court without the appeals court entertaining a claim of double jeopardy. The juvenile court in LaSalle Parish waffled on the question of bail. Briefly, Bell was released on bail. Because of the September 20 march, judicial retaliation set in. The trial judge in the juvenile court wears two hats. He also had heard Bell in adult Court.
Judge J.P. Mauffray’s belated judicial wisdom led him to conclude that Bell had violated probation in an earlier juvenile case. Bell’s bail was revoked and he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. White supremacists behave this way. It is tit-for-tat or one upsmanship. There had to be a response to the massive march.
On or about November 9, Bell’s attorney moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument based on double jeopardy. Bell’s trial in adult court was flawed for lack of sufficient evidence. A prosecutor is not entitled to get two bites at the apple after submitting insufficient evidence to the jury during the first trial. This case should be tossed on appeal.
Bell’s case reeks of racism. Even before a white high school student was allegedly beaten by the “Jena 6”, LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters had threatened the Black students at Jena High School. Louisiana should have already disciplined him. In addition, the state attorney general in Louisiana has the authority to supplant Reed.
The belated revocation of Bell’s probation in an earlier juvenile case should also be examined. A person’s right to be free of incarceration should not depend on the right of others to exercise First Amendment rights. If Blacks had stayed in their places and stayed out of Jena and not caused a ruckus, Bell’s probation would have never been jeopardized. Double jeopardy again?
Judge Mauffray ruled on November 16 that the public would be allowed to attend a trial which is already void ab initio. Bell has already had his day in court. The trial de novo is scheduled to start on December 6, 2007. No plan is being made for Blacks to attend the public trial.
Because Black leaders are prohibited from duplicating September 20, the Back community is not encouraged to be in Jena on December 6. Black leaders may have to pay for this infraction if Blacks show up en masse on December 6.
The November 16 march around the Department of Justice building seven times had zero to do with the plight of the “Jena 6.” This is a classic case of Blacks knocking on the wrong door, talking to the wrong people and asking the wrong question. The correct venues were the executive branch of government in Louisiana and the legislative branch of government in Washington, DC.