Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Judge who reversed teen’s rape conviction removed from bench" video.

Unfortunately, this likely means that double jeopardy would still apply if they want to prosecute him again even though he was found guilty initially.
18
@paullooper1090 Yes, but doing so at the sentencing hearing seems rather odd to me. I get that it's a bench trial, but why was there a sentencing hearing if he hadn't been found guilty?
3
They generally are unless they're black Supreme Court Justices, in which case nobody seems interested in doing anything about it.
2
I genuinely wonder if the fact that he did enter a guilty verdict at the trial has any impact on the ability of the prosecution to get the sentence fixed on appeal. I don't know that it's allowed to rule guilty and then decide during sentencing that he's in fact not guilty. If he genuinely thought he needed more time, he could have delayed the ruling. Sentencing and the actual guilt are separate phases for a reason.
2
@micclay We all know what the answer to that is. If there were any legitimate reason for it, the defendant would have been found not guilty at trial, not during the sentencing phase. He was a judge, he can't possibly have never overseen a trial where the accuser is clearly full of it. It happens and the whole way this was handled smacked of him not liking the outcome.
2
@dianadialga3955 Adulthood is one of those rather tricky issues. Around here the age of adulthood ranges from 13 to 21 depending upon the specific issue. And some of it can be modified by the court in t he case of emancipated minors.
1
I do have to wonder if the reason for this wasn't that he had done something similar when he was younger and genuinely doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. It's unclear to me how he could deliver a guilty verdict and then reverse it during sentencing. Sentencing phases of trials only happen if the defendant is convicted.
1