Does anyone know the odds or stats of being found not quilty after a previous mistrial for hung jury.?
916699
Yes, the odds are 50-50, more or less.  That's the same as it was the first time.
443375
Well it depends. Maybe 6 to 8 years. You could get out before then. It all depends on the jury. good luck!
1163227
it depend on your county or state, but you need to fill out paperwork. go to the court house of the county you got the record from and follow their procedures.  I did it for my ex-husband in Broward county Florida, and it works, don't be afraid to ask questions.  Also don't do anything stupid to get another conviction.  If you stay out of trouble this will help expunge the first one.
1035878
Well, I hate the bearer of bad news, but I don't believe there is a certain time limit on those indictments.  If you recall, the recent civil right murder trials were 40+ years after the crime and the grand jury indicted.  \n\nThat may be different on capital offenses though.  Otherwise, it might depend on the crime and the corresponding statute of limitations.
799631
Has the case gone to trial?  If so, it will be on microfilm at the Court house where the trial took place.  If the case was never solved then the police have the information and they may or may not release it to you.\n\nGood Luck and Take Care
207221
I think you screwed yourself.\n\nYou can file a post-conviction appeal if you have the grounds for one (such as incorrect application of the law during sentencing) but I wouldn't hold out much hope for your winning it.
910338
Hmm, my guess is see if there were any newspaper reports as to when the court hearing will be or to just contact a local court house and ask them how to gain this information.\n\nGood luck!
759434
i was a juror many moons ago and let me tell you it was a farce!\ni was approached by a defence witness and to cut a long story short she ended up serving 6 months. the girl didn't tell me anything i already know and yes she shouldn't of approached me, but i think she was desperate. she also had a 6 week old baby who was put into care for the length of her sentence. The reason for the confidentiality is so that outside influences don't cloud your judgement. the decision should be entirelly upto you, on whether you convict or not. i know that after the case my husband would've voted differently to me so if i had of talked to other people then i may of been swayed
1032287
I've never tried. Been summoned for jury duty 3 times, and happily did my DUTY each time. My wife got called once, but she was 9 months pregnant at the time and they let her out of it (her first day of duty would have been her due date).
1043374
there is a chance, but you messed up pretty bad. i got a pardon for theft. and it was a pretty big pardon also, it took them awhile to decide. so you might have a chance.
183667
I posted a question about 2 wks ago asking for help.My brother was murdered,and a 17yr old girl did it.She got charged with youthful offender and she turned 18 a month later.Her friends are in jail too on charges of 1st degree murder. My brothers name was Robby Brown  Stillwater,OK.Payne County. I hope someone out there is still thinking or us.We had missing flyers posted for 4 months.Hunters found my brother skeltal remains.Am I who you are looking for?
27257
The previous answers are wrong.  It's just historical accident.  I doubt the "college professor" cited above knows more than the US Supreme Court. \n\nThe Court in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, the U.S. Supreme Court said:\n\n"We had occasion in Duncan v. Louisiana to review briefly the oft-told history of the development of trial by jury in criminal cases.  That history  revealed a long tradition attaching great importance to the concept of relying on a body of one's peers to determine guilt or innocence as a safeguard against arbitrary law enforcement. That same history, however, affords little insight into the considerations that gradually led the size of that body to be generally fixed at 12.  Some have suggested that the number 12 was fixed upon simply because that was the number of the presentment jury from the hundred, from which the petit jury developed.  Other, less circular but more fanciful reasons for the number 12 have been given, "but they were all brought forward after the number was fixed," and rest on little more than mystical or superstitious insights into the significance of "12." Lord Coke's explanation that the "number of twelve is much respected in holy writ, as 12 apostles, 12 stones, 12 tribes, etc.,"  is typical.  In short, while sometime in the 14th century the size of the  jury at common law came to be fixed generally at 12, that particular feature of the jury system appears to have been a historical accident, unrelated to the great  purposes which gave rise to the jury in the first place.  The question before us is whether this accidental feature of the jury has been immutably codified into our Constitution.\nSee Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 151-154 (1968).\n\nIn tracing the development of the jury from the time when the jury performed a different, "inquisitory" function, James B. Thayer notes the following:\n\n"In early times the inquisition had no fixed number. In the Frankish empire we are told of 66, 41, 20, 17, 13, 11, 8, 7, 53, 15, and a great variety of other numbers. So also among the Normans it varied much, and 'twelve has not even the place of the prevailing grundzahl;' the documents show all sorts of numbers -- 4, 5, 6, 12, 13-18, 21, 27, 30, and so on. It seems to have been the recognitions under Henry II. that established twelve as the usual number; even then the number was not uniform." The Jury and Its Development, 5 Harv. L. Rev. 295 (1892) (citations omitted).\n \nSee J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law 85 (1898).\n\nSimilarly, Professor Scott writes:\n\n"At the beginning of the thirteenth century twelve was indeed the usual but not the invariable number. But by the middle of the fourteenth century the requirement of twelve had probably become definitely fixed. Indeed this number finally came to be regarded with something like superstitious reverence." A. Scott, Fundamentals of Procedure in Actions at Law 75-76 (1922) (footnotes omitted).\n \n1 W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 325 (1927); Wells, The Origin of the Petty Jury, 27 L. Q. Rev. 347, 357 (1911). The latter author traces the development of the 12-man petit jury through the following four stages. The first stage saw the development of the presentment jury, made up generally of 12 persons from the hundred, whose function was simply to charge the accused with a crime; the test of his guilt or innocence was by some other means, such as trial by ordeal, battle, or wager of law. In the second stage, the presentment jury began to be asked for its verdict on the guilt or innocence of the person it had accused, and hence began to function as both a petit and a grand jury. In the third stage, "combination juries" were formed to render the verdict in order to broaden the base of representation beyond the local hundred, or borough, to include the county. These juries were formed by adding
64626
You can also contact the court that held the trial.  They will have the verdit for the case in question.  I have added a link to the circuit courts in West Virgina for your use.
373320
Actually, you DO have a right to find out this info.  I am sorry Beadful to hear of your experience but, this is a rarity for most.  Go to the nearest county of where this felon charge took place.  They might have this info but, unfortunately some don't.  You might be required to have a written statement plus a small fee, usually 10.00-15.00 dollars.  If you live near this county courthouse, you can easily get this info from the Clerk of courts.  Good Luck.
349304
Many courthouses have that information on their websites. I would try there first
355936
It's impossible to know without knowing the crime or the defendant. Perhaps the defendant was similar to yourself. Prosecutors like to avoid having jurors who can identify with the defendants. Makes for acquittals and hung juries.
561007
Since this is purely hypothetical and for academic discussion and not legal advice I will try to answer.\n\nI believe you cannot blame the state because the jury would be the one who actually imposed a sentence and ruled on the guilt. However if in fact the husband was exonerated, there might be a malpractice claim against his defense attorney.