High court to decide double jeopardy question
Recent Cases
The Supreme Court will decide whether a jury forewoman's offhand comment that the jury was unable to make a decision on a murder charge means the suspect can't be retried on that charge.
The high court on Tuesday agreed to hear an appeal from Alex Blueford, whose murder trial in Arkansas ended in a hung jury.
The jury forewoman told the judge before he declared a mistrial that the jury had voted unanimously against capital murder and first-degree murder. The jury had deadlocked on a lesser charge, manslaughter, which caused the judge to declare a mistrial.
Blueford argued the forewoman's statement, said in open court, meant that he has been acquitted of capital murder and first-degree murder.
Prosecutors decided to retry Blueford on all three charges. He contended he could not be retried on capital murder and first-degree murder because of Fifth Amendment double jeopardy protections.
Arkansas courts have disagreed. The high court will now review that decision.
Blueford was on trial for killing his girlfriend's 20-month-old son.
Related listings
-
US court turns down Philly DA in cop-killing case
Recent Cases 10/11/2011The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request from prosecutors who want to re-impose a death sentence on former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of killing a white Philadelphia police officer 30 years ago. The justices on Tuesday refused to g...
-
Defense lawyer will not help Edwards at trial
Recent Cases 10/11/2011A key member of the legal team defending John Edwards against campaign finance charges will not represent the former Democratic presidential candidate at his upcoming trial following questions about a potential conflict of interest. A motion filed by...
-
Court won't hear appeal from Alamo followers
Recent Cases 10/09/2011The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from followers of evangelist Tony Alamo (uh-LAHM'-oh) who had their children taken away when they wouldn't agree not to expose them to the controversial ministry. The high court on Tuesday refused to hear an app...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.