How many times can the government put a person of trial for the same alleged crime? If you try the case enough times, you will eventually get a jury of 12 who will convict just because they don't like the defendant's haircut. Since the first two cases were mistrials, it is apparently not considered "double jeopardy", but at some point, this has to stop.

gulliver-I'm sure this guy is gussied up for court. He knows the system. According to someone who knew him for years, he was having problems and was in trouble starting back in elementary school. And always bailed out (so to speak) by his parents. It seems to be a pattern of bad behavior ongoing for years. It also seems like a problem his folks can't fix. There is so much legal battling going on behind closed doors during a trial that we don't know about. There may be evidence that has convinced the prosecutor, but he can't bring it to trial. Who knows?

If a "pattern of bad behavior" is the only criteria, the DA could put about 10% of the population on trial for murder. If I am a juror and the prosecutor is asking me to put someone in prison for the rest of his life, I need to see, you know, like some actual evidence. I'm just sayin'.

3 trials? I thought you could try somebody once.

You can only try them once if he is found not guitly, if it is a hung jury, he is fair game

Auburnative, a verrdict needs to be reached 1st. None was reached one any of the other trials.

He'll get one more chance...he won't be tried a fourth time...he legally could, but he won't be...

Salamander What possible connection does that have in whether he is guilty or not? If he was in an orange suit the jurors would most likely find him guilty by association. Do you know the man personally or does what you say come from someone that you know that knew him how many people has it passed thru? You have no idea whether or not he had problems. What you have heard is not permissible as evidence in a court of law it is hearsay. I sat thru one of the trials and I can assure you that the evidence presented proved the man innocent. I would also say that being constrained in a very small space with 11 others is not the most desirable situation to be in. Many of those who served in the trial with me was desperate to get out of that room and willing to do what ever it took to accomplish that. You are right Gulliver! If one was to get on line and find all those who have been convicted of a crime someone else did you would be surprised how many their are. If the prosecution had proven him guilty I would have been the first to strive for conviction but they actually proved him not guilty. He can be tried as many times as the D/A choses to spend tax payer dollars on the additional trials. It would seem harleyrider that that would be the case but it isn't. You are right steelybob. I would only say we all better hope if a buddy or family member etc. is killed and it appears that we was the last to see them alive we better be prepared for an never ending nightmare.

Hi Grinunbarrett - I agree with all of your comments. I can't comment on what may have gone on in the Deliberation room since I was not present, but knowing the personalities of the jurors, and only imagining the confinement all must have felt, I can certainly understand the frustration that would have been experienced by all. It was a very long, tedious trial. Deliberations were deadlocked. Frankly, I was surprised that the DA went for a third trial, and do not envy anyone currently listening to all of the testimony. I have echoed the last sentence of your comment to my spouse more than once since the trial. NEVER get into the system, even if it's the best the world has to offer.

Daisy; The Assistant D/A Mr. Marchy made the statement that he was going to gain a conviction against this young man and then retire. I was in the jury room for half of the time the Mr Marchy and The detective who sat with him through most of the trial and one could tell by their actions and words that they was extremely upset when the second jury couldn't come to consensus concerning his guilt or innocents. And attempted to influence the decision of those who voted against guilt and convince them that they was stupid and wrong in their decision. I would once again declare that as they set out in the beginning to convict this young man they in fact proved him innocent. Doubt was the main factor in everything they presented and by their they placed major doubt on themselves. I am surprised that so many of the jurors folded and decided to join the jury foreman in her demand to speculate rather than consider the facts and honor the instructions issued by the judge. We are living through a sad time in American history it would seem to me in most areas of our society. It is good to know there are folks like you Daisy who are responsible and seek after the truth. The best to you and your family! grinunbarrett

Yes, Grinunbarrett, Doubt is the key to the verdict. I don't know whether Mr. Madsen committed the crime, but the prosecution certainly did not prove their case. There were too many open items, such as the lack of DNA anywhere, and why if consciousness of the crime was there, the driveway was not thoroughly washed off. I haven't seen any coverage of this case anywhere since it started. Perhaps a gag order is in place.

Let's face it---the DA had a lousy case from the beginning. It's hard to get 12 people agree unanimously one way or the other when the evidence is 95% circumstantial. This is First Degree Murder. Perhaps they would have done better if the charges were reduced to 2nd degree murder. Not premeditated, perhaps it was a terrible accident...who really knows. I doubt if Caleb even knows because of his mental state or impairment. I say 3 strikes and you're out, Mr Markey. It's time to retire!

I agree with your conclusion. If Mr. Madsen committed the crime I do not think that it was premeditated.

Lamplighter and Daisy; Sorry I had not checked on this site for awhile. Mr Madsen was charged with 4 counts and the jury could have voted guilty or innocent on either of the four counts. Had there been evidence, he could have been guilty on the least and innocent on the other three one of those charges was 2nd degree murder. The least of these was voluntary manslaughter which would have been the end of it because Mr. Madsen would have been released on time served. I will repeat myself there was no evidence presented in the 2nd trial that connected Mr Madsen to the crime in any way. The only circumstantial evidence against Mr. Madsen was The fact that he had been friends with the victim since they was eight years a period of about 25 years and it was perceived by investigators and the D/A to be the last person to see the victim alive something else they did not prove. The very closest the prosecution came to connecting Mr. Madsen to the crime in the words of one of the jurors was something Mr. Madsen said on a tapped interview as being close to a confession as one could get, something I disagreed with totally. There was no confession but in fact Mr Madsen over fifty times denied that he had killed his friend in those interviews. Very little circumstantial evidence and I think I've have covered that. There was a gag order in the third trial and should have been in both of the previous two trials.

I calculated the friend ship of Mr. Madsen and his friend as 25 years which was wrong they had actually known one another for about 15 years when the crime was committed in 2005 They did have new evidence in this trial which if it had been tested most likely have proven that the crime did not happen where it was alleged to have happened. I sure hope they consider the facts and refuse to speculate in this jury.

Caleb’s own brother Tyson thinks Caleb killed Chris. Why? Caleb heard voices. Caleb was paranoid. Caleb worked a graveyard. Weird that the body was laid to rest in such a strange way. Caleb had been fired from his family business, fired by his own dad, because he was freaking people out at that business. He was jealous of Chris because Chris worked at that same business. All of the evidences points to Caleb and nothing points to anybody else. Look at the facts. Caleb’s knife, blood in Caleb’s driveway, Caleb’s said he did it because Chris was a thief (yes this is a confession). Look at the facts people. They all point towards Caleb, and yes it is really really bad when your own brother even thinks you did it. Don’t be ignorant and ignore the facts. Look at the facts. Everything points to Caleb.

JBClassics you do sound like one of the witnesses in the 2nd trial. Tyson was not even in California when Chris was murdered. How could he have known anything about whether or not Caleb was guilty of such a crime he would have had to speculate in order to come to that conclusion. I wonder, if what you say is true, although I don't believe it is, that it may have been generated by sibling rivalry? There was no evidence presented that Caleb was jealous of Chris and all these accusations you have made are not accurate. The evidence did not point to Caleb and having been in that court room for about five weeks you are just showing your ignorance. I did look at the facts for that entire time and did not ignore any of them. You wasn't a really close friend to Chris was you? Again I would ask if you was in the court room for the entire presentation of the facts? I can tell by what you have written that you wasn't which for me indicates ignorance. If they had presented evidence to support their case I would have been the first to vote guilty and would have worked toward get consensus among all of us in that jury room. Sounds like you have a personal vendetta toward Caleb Madsen and it is not becoming to you.

grinunbarrett, I have heard you don’t trust law enforcement or the court system. I have heard you may have a connection with the Madsen family. If these things are true why were you on the jury? Were you honest during jury selection? Are you an honest and ethical person? You are right, Tyson was not in California during the murder, but he knew Caleb better than anybody else in this world and he thinks Caleb did it. Caleb’s own parents don’t know half of the things Tyson knows about Caleb. I never had a personal vendetta towards Caleb before this happened. In fact, like many others I often stuck up for Caleb growing up, because he always got himself into bad situations. I take what I know about Caleb, and I look at the facts of this case and I see that it could not have been anybody but Caleb. I only want the truth, and the truth is that Caleb killed Chris. All of the evidence points towards him and nothing points towards anybody else. You are not good for society, and you should go back into the woodwork that you came out of. You refuse to believe any of the evidence that was presented to you because you have biases that won’t let you see reality.

I was not and am not connected to the Madsen Family. They live in a totally different world that I. I do believe that the system is in place for our benefit but also believe that in every bushel of apples there are always a few bad ones. I don't know who you may have heard that from how about a name. Whom ever it was they don't know what they are talking about. Yes I am an ethical, by your own words I don't see that in you. You have an agenda and to you I suppose the end justifies the means. I do not have a clue who Tyson Madsen is but an opinion is one thing a sure knowledge is quit another. The problem is you when you look at the so called facts of the case you then use speculation to come to the conclusion that you have a juror is instructed that is against the law. I disagree that the evidence points to him. I did consider the facts in that trial and rejected speculation as instructed. There is information that there are other factors that you have not mentioned as I have not because that info has come to me via others. If you can't convince the yell out railing accusations, right. The so called evidence you claim to present is not evidence it is hearsay. You are totally out in left field JB. I suppose I will become one of your victims of evil gossip huh. That discredits your words even more. I do believe you have been blind sided. I can tell you that we will never agree that is very obvious. I was on that Jury I was able to consider the evidence permitted.

gruinbarrett, there is a reason that 10 of the jurors voted guilty on the panel that you sat on. I think you are the one out in left field. You know very little about Caleb and I don’t know why you stand up for him.

You are right about my knowing very little about Caleb Madsen. I did observe him while I sat in the court room during the trial but my main duty was to observe and listen to all of the evidence and make a determination based on that, not on the opinion of the other jurors nor anyone else including my wife. I didn't even discuss the trial with her until it was all over nor with anyone else for that matter. Some who knew Caleb after trial 2 expressed a totally different opinion than the one you have. I am thankful that I didn't know him. I would not have remained on the jury if I had known him. You have your opinion and I am sure no one will change that opinion, likewise with myself.