Question

1. what type of jury doesnt decide a final verdict, but determines if criminal charges should be brought against someone?

a. criminal petit jury
b. grand jury
c. civil jury

1. in the 1990s movie, double jeopardy, starring ashley judd and tommy lee jones, the main character is released from serving a 20 year sentence for a murder conviction and tries to kill the husband she discovered was not dead. can she be convicted?

a. no, according to the 5th amendment, the state can not retry the accused for the same crime
b. yes, when she shoots her husband 20 years later, the act would have constituted a different crime, which happened in a different place, under a different legal jurisdiction — and she would totally have been held criminally liable.

1. abi has been arrested for a crime that she says she did not commit. she wants her day in court to plead her case. what amendment gives her the right to have her case heard quickly?

a. fifth c. 8th
b. sixth d. 2nd

Explanation:

Question 22

A grand jury's role is to determine if there's enough evidence to bring criminal charges (indictment), not to decide a final verdict (that's a petit jury's role). Criminal petit juries decide guilt/verdict, civil juries handle civil cases. So the grand jury matches the description.

The 5th Amendment's double jeopardy clause prevents retrying for the same crime. But in the movie, when she tries to kill him later, that's a new act (attempted murder) at a different time, not the same crime as the original murder conviction. Wait, no—wait, the original was a false conviction for his murder (he was alive). But when she later tries to kill him, that's a new crime (attempted murder) separate from the original "murder" (which he didn't commit). Wait, no, the original charge was murder (but he was alive, so it was a wrongful conviction). But when she later shoots him, that's a new criminal act (attempted murder or murder attempt) in the present, so it's a different crime than the original (wrongful) murder conviction. Wait, no—double jeopardy applies to the same offense. The original was for his murder (which he didn't commit, so she was wrongfully convicted). But when she later tries to kill him, that's a new act, so it's a different crime (attempted murder) than the original (murder). Wait, but option a says "same crime"—but the original crime (murder) didn't happen (he was alive), so when she later tries to kill him, is that the same crime? No, because the original was a false conviction for a murder that didn't occur. When she later attempts to kill him, that's a new criminal act (attempted murder) at a later time, so it's not the same crime. Wait, maybe I misread. Wait, the original was a conviction for murdering him (but he was alive). Then, when she gets out, she tries to kill him (now alive). So the original crime (murder) was a wrongful conviction (he wasn't dead), but the new act is an attempt to kill him (now a new crime: attempted murder). But the double jeopardy clause would prevent retrying for the same offense. But the original offense was murder (which didn't happen), and the new offense is attempted murder (a different offense). Wait, no—if she was convicted of murder (for killing him, but he was alive), then later, when he's alive, she tries to kill him, that's a new act, so it's a different crime (attempted murder) than the original (murder). So the state can prosecute her for the new crime (attempted murder) because it's not the same as the original (murder) offense. Wait, but option a says "the same crime"—so if the original was murder (wrongful conviction), and the new act is attempted murder, they are different crimes. But option a says "No, according to the 5th Amendment... same crime"—but that would be incorrect, because the new act is a different crime. Wait, maybe I messed up. Wait, the original conviction was for his murder (he was alive, so it was a false conviction). But in reality, he was alive, so the original crime (murder) never occurred. So when she later tries to kill him, that's a new crime (attempted murder) because it's a new act. But the double jeopardy clause would apply to the original charge (murder) if she was acquitted or convicted, but here she was convicted of murder (wrongfully, because he was alive). But when she later tries to kill him, that's a new criminal act, so it's a different offense, so double jeopardy doesn't apply. Wait, but option a says "the same crime"—so if the original was murder (wrongful conviction) and the new act is attempted murder, they are different crimes. So option b says it's a different crime (the act of shooting him later is a different crime) because it's a different act, time, etc. So option b is correct: when she shoots him later, it's a different crime (attempted murder) than the original (murder, which was a wrongful conviction), so she ca…

The 6th Amendment gives the right to a speedy trial (among other rights like counsel, jury, etc.). The 5th is about self-incrimination/double jeopardy, 8th about bail/cruel punishment, 2nd about right to bear arms. So the 6th Amendment gives the right to a speedy trial (have her case heard quickly).

Answer:

b. Grand jury

Question 23