Double Jeopardy.

[whiterussian1974]

ABC's "The Family" and NetFlix's "Making a Murderer" got me thinking.
If someone served, let's say 10yrs of a 20yr Sentence for Murder; then the "victim" was found to be alive and the Inmate was Innocent; what would happen if the Freed Inmate then killed the "victim?"

[sucker76]

That person was already convicted of that crime. How can he be charged twice for the same crime? Similarly, OJ can anounce on national TV with the knife in his hand that he's the killer and he can not be charged with murder of Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman since he was a quitted of those crimes. Civil suits are another matter.

[CanOfWhooppass]

New crime is committed so new trial and sentance. It's not like once you get out of a ticket for speeding on main street you can speed freely on that street forever.

[sucker76]

I still hold that there was no new crime committed so no new charges apply. Like whiterussian1974 said its a thought exercise. I sure won't put it to a test. My conclusion isn't based on anything other than my understanding of the double jeopardy law. I tried to chug through the double jeopardy laws and limitations and didn't find any court related example similar to the one we have here.

[T-Rex]

I say you get tried again.

If you are released and find the person you were convicted of killing (who obviously is alive) and you don't turn them in, to get PAID for your wrongful incarceration (and faking their own death), you're an idiot and clearly worthless to our society.

[sucker76]

I say you get tried again.

If you are released and find the person you were convicted of killing (who obviously is alive) and you don't turn them in, to get PAID for your wrongful incarceration (and faking their own death), you're an idiot and clearly worthless to our society.

That's an interesting twist I didn't think of.

[doubloon]

I say you get tried again.

If you are released and find the person you were convicted of killing (who obviously is alive) and you don't turn them in, to get PAID for your wrongful incarceration (and faking their own death), you're an idiot and clearly worthless to our society.

Pretty much and it happens more often that you might think.

The "victim" turning up alive that is.

[whiterussian1974]

I'll post what actually happens in this Scenario later. But for now you are correct. This is a Thought Experiment, not actual Law. Should, not Does.

Can: "New crime is committed so new trial and sentance. It's not like once you get out of a ticket for speeding on main street you can speed freely on that street forever."
If you can prove that your car was destroyed by the State, and they then charge you w speeding in that self-same car 3 months later w/ desc., VIN and Plate# of that destroyed car; then a valid defense would be that the State destroyed that car and it no longer is capable of dragging down Main St.

A side note. I was once involved in a case where 2 people were BOTH convicted and sentenced for Aid/Abet 1st Murder. According to the State's Theory, they all assisted in a Murder that noone actually committed. Not Conspiracy mind you. But Aiding a Murder that never occurred.

On Appeal the last person convicted won on the grounds that the Jury found him innocent of Murder, and then the DA charged w AA and Accessary after the Fact as Lessor Included Offences.
The Court actually found that the Convict couldn't have aided a crime that the State argued noone else committed. And since the Jury found him innocent of Murder and Accessory, those charges fell under Double Jeopardy.
---
As for new crime committed: John Paul Jones said that we have but 1 life to give. He's not a cat. How can a dead man be repeatedly killed? (Remember that Law doesn't follow Common Sense.)
---
For getting paid for turning in the living "dead man." Let's assume that the victim appeared at the Police Station alive as on The Family. "Killer" gets 30k for each yr he spent getting raped and beaten in Prison.

So the State could sue for the return of the 30k/yr, but I'm only asking about Double Jeopardy for a crime that he has already served 1/2 his Sentence for.

[TROOPER]

The 'victim', with the exception of fugue states, becomes guilty by virtue of remaining silent. I'm certain there are instances where the 'victim' doesn't know that they're supposed to be dead, and that there's a perfectly rational, non-malicious reason for the situation.... but I'm equally certain that those bizarre instances are so rare as to be almost fiction.

Point being that the 'victim' is guilty of framing the 'murderer'. That's a weird mix of defamation-of-character, wrongful arrest, wrongful imprisonment, and so on.

If I was wrongfully convicted of a murder when a murder didn't even occur, and years later I found the person, I would try to kill him/her. You'd obviously forfeit any money, as chick-in-front-of-a-sports-car pointed out, but the state would still look like a bunch of buffoons to the media, who would absolutely run with the story. You'd get a movie deal, or some such crap... or write a book, or who-cares-what.

The state cannot restore your life, only certain privileges. The time lost and the experience itself cannot be undone. Play-pretending like a few million equates to restoration is silly.

New crime is committed so new trial and sentance. It's not like once you get out of a ticket for speeding on main street you can speed freely on that street forever.

This isn't even close to truth. The analogy is flawed as well, since there's an unlimited capacity to exceed the speed limit. Also, speeding at a later date isn't an exculpatory exercise. Killing someone that's supposed to be dead proves that they couldn't have been killed earlier.

The only real issue here is if the state is able to correctly establish an identity. You'd be up sht-creek if they couldn't/wouldn't/didn't.

[whiterussian1974]

Trooper: Wonderfully stated. You never disappoint.
Always glad to get your experienced perspective.

[bakerjw]

This is definitely a good mental exercise. Even though you'd already paid the penalty for a crime that did not occur, morality and conscience should come into play to do the right thing. i.e. turn in the original "victim".

On a side note. I am of the belief that if a person is convicted and then exonerated, the prosecutor should then have to suffer the same penalty as the convicted. I believe that a conviction is more important than the truth to most prosecutors hence the penalty for abusing the role should be higher.

More of my snarky cynicism showing up again.

[TROOPER]

I don't like that; that a prosecutor should be charged if it's later found that the person was erroneously convicted. Of course, the hope is that a DA will act in good faith, and there may not be a lot of recourse if this isn't the case. That said, it's important to note that it is an elected position, and the hope may be that malicious prosecution is dealt with either at the polling booth, or in a higher court.

It's a system. No system is so fool-proof that someone can't corrupt it. It relies on a lot of other parts to function as safe-guards. In this case, it's probably a mix of the electorate, the higher-courts, and the Bar Association.

[whiterussian1974]

It's a system. No system is so fool-proof that someone can't corrupt it. It relies on a lot of other parts to function as safe-guards. In this case, it's probably a mix of the electorate, the higher-courts, and the Bar Association.

And the Trial Judge and Jury. DA only presents his case, Jury determines Facts, and Judge determines which version of the law applies.

It's ultimately Jurors who are responsible for False Convictions. I've frequently said that each Juror should spend 1mo in prison for each yr that the Accused gets. If they seriously feel that he needs to be caged and most Rights stripped, then they must be willing to sacrifice too. Not just vote Guilty b/c they "have better things to do."

That's a discussion for a separate Thread.

[TROOPER]

It's a system. No system is so fool-proof that someone can't corrupt it. It relies on a lot of other parts to function as safe-guards. In this case, it's probably a mix of the electorate, the higher-courts, and the Bar Association.

And the Trial Judge and Jury. DA only presents his case, Jury determines Facts, and Judge determines which version of the law applies.

It's ultimately Jurors who are responsible for False Convictions. I've frequently said that each Juror should spend 1mo in prison for each yr that the Accused gets. If they seriously feel that he needs to be caged and most Rights stripped, then they must be willing to sacrifice too. Not just vote Guilty b/c they "have better things to do."

That's a discussion for a separate Thread.

I don't disagree about the judge or jury being a part of a general safe-guard during the process, but I meant in the realm of a vendetta-driven DA. Would the judge know one if he saw it? Would the jury? I feel like they both judge the case, and not the DA.

It's a good system. If more people were civic-minded, it would function better. I suspect that the general lack of voting is the root cause of the whole thing. Not that we'd necessarily have different candidates, but when any elected official understands that 94% of the population is watching them, they behave differently than if only 41% do (41% of the population voted in the 2014 mid-term).

[L1A1Rocker]

Double jeopardy protects a person from being tried a second time after being found NOT guilty. Being convicted of the same crime twice is not double jeopardy.

[whiterussian1974]

Double jeopardy protects a person from being tried a second time after being found NOT guilty. Being convicted of the same crime twice is not double jeopardy.

The process of Reversing a False Conviction is having the Court enter a Summary Judgment of Not Guilty due to Exculpitory Info not available at Trial.

Having a 2nd Trial due to Reversible Error would be the scenario of which you speak. THAT could result in the "victim" giving testimony that the "killer" abducted and raped them. Thus resulting in a Verdict Modification. But if the "killer" had no part in the Original crime, then the State would request that the Court enter a Ruling of Not Guilty. The Prosecution could otherwise be disbarred for Misconduct.

The possiblilty of additional charges at retrial causes some Defendants to serve out their sentence rather than requesting a Vacated Judgement and Retrial.

[TROOPER]

Double jeopardy protects a person from being tried a second time after being found NOT guilty. Being convicted of the same crime twice is not double jeopardy.

That's wrong. No other explanation is even necessary, it's just wrong.

From Wikipedia:

The second round, Double Jeopardy!, features six new categories of clues. Clue values are doubled from the Jeopardy! round (except in Super Jeopardy!, where Double Jeopardy! values ranged from 500 to 2,500 points). The contestant with the least money at the end of the Jeopardy! round makes the first selection in Double Jeopardy!;[8] if there is a tie, the tied contestant standing at the leftmost lectern selects first.

Joking aside, here's a cut-and-paste from a legal perspective:

A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense.

Note that it is for the same offense after acquittal OR conviction.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense.

Tried for the murder of Jonathan Citizen Doe, convicted, time served, released... cannot be tried again for the murder of Jonathan Citizen Doe. I'm sure there'd be other horse-sht thrown on there to ruin one's day, such as 'aggravated assault, discharge of a weapon in an illegal manner (or something like that), violation of parole, assault, blah-blah-blah.'

... but once convicted for the murder of X, you can't be convicted again for the murder of X.

[whiterussian1974]

A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense.

Note that it is for the same offense after acquittal OR conviction.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense.

Tried for the murder of Jonathan Citizen Doe, convicted, time served, released... cannot be tried again for the murder of Jonathan Citizen Doe. I'm sure there'd be other horse-sht thrown on there to ruin one's day, such as 'aggravated assault, discharge of a weapon in an illegal manner (or something like that), violation of parole, assault, blah-blah-blah.'

... but once convicted for the murder of X, you can't be convicted again for the murder of X.

Even further. Once Convicted/Acquitted of the Actions surrounding a single event, extra charges can't be added at a later date. No AgAsslt, Weapon, ParoleVio, Felon in Possession, Operating a ___ w/o License, etc.

Only if Defense seeks Vacation and Retrial can the extra charges be added. Some States don't allow for addition of added charges that weren't filed b/f 1st Trial. Others do b/c it's treated as starting over from beginning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacated_judgment "whereby the judgment under review is set aside and a new trial is ordered.[29] A vacated judgment is rendered where the original judgment failed to make an order in accordance with the law and a new trial is ordered to ensure a just outcome. The process of vacating a judgment is sometimes referred to as vacatur.[30]"

[doubloon]

Halfway there ...

http://wreg.com/2016/03/10/escaped-miss ... k-hostage/

[poikilotrm]

I say you get tried again.

If you are released and find the person you were convicted of killing (who obviously is alive) and you don't turn them in, to get PAID for your wrongful incarceration (and faking their own death), you're an idiot and clearly worthless to our society.

Turn them in for what? Being alive?

[whiterussian1974]

I say you get tried again.

If you are released and find the person you were convicted of killing (who obviously is alive) and you don't turn them in, to get PAID for your wrongful incarceration (and faking their own death), you're an idiot and clearly worthless to our society.

Turn them in for what? Being alive?

Yes. He said for faking their own death.
Although, the "victim" being proven to be alive was part of the original ?. That's why the Inmate got released after serving only 1/2 their sentence and received $30k/each yr of Wrongful Incarceration.

[T-Rex]

I say you get tried again.

If you are released and find the person you were convicted of killing (who obviously is alive) and you don't turn them in, to get PAID for your wrongful incarceration (and faking their own death), you're an idiot and clearly worthless to our society.

Turn them in for what? Being alive?

To prove your innocence....
Nothing says "I didn't do it" better than the murder victim being alive.

How was your trip?


ETA

Yes. He said for faking their own death.

Not technically illegal, federally, unless other crimes were committed in the process. As far as I understand.

[whiterussian1974]

I didn't actually state that the Inmate would get $30k/yr in my OP. That was inferred from ABC's The Family. (Just wanted to Edit my previous post w/o running up the Edit count. )

Not technically illegal, federally, unless other crimes were committed in the process. As far as I understand.

Allowing someone to be Investigated, Tried, or Serve a Sentence for one's death when one is still alive is illegal IF one knows of the Investigation, Trial, Sentence.
One must submit Proof of Life to the Investigating Authorities; and Defense, if Authorities don't behave ethically.

[TROOPER]

Even further. Once Convicted/Acquitted of the Actions surrounding a single event, extra charges can't be added at a later date. No AgAsslt, Weapon, ParoleVio, Felon in Possession, Operating a ___ w/o License, etc.

Only if Defense seeks Vacation and Retrial can the extra charges be added. Some States don't allow for addition of added charges that weren't filed b/f 1st Trial. Others do b/c it's treated as starting over from beginning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacated_judgment "whereby the judgment under review is set aside and a new trial is ordered.[29] A vacated judgment is rendered where the original judgment failed to make an order in accordance with the law and a new trial is ordered to ensure a just outcome. The process of vacating a judgment is sometimes referred to as vacatur.[30]"

I don't think this is quite right. Let's assume you're tried for killing someone who isn't actually dead. Ok... we got that premise down. 25 years later, you come across the 'dead-guy', and at that time, you become very angry, and then shoot him just outside of a Starbucks, killing him.

You can't be convicted of murdering him again, but the surrounding charges could very well stick; the discharge of the gun, violation of parole, and so on.

I see what you're saying about a new trial for surrounding charges on the first incident, but there are clearly two separate incidents. And there is an unlimited capacity to violate some of those laws; such as violation of parole and weapons discharge and assault.

I'd be curious to see all of that happen, just because it would provide such a sht-storm. But it isn't conceptually as though they're re-trying aspects of the first case. The only real question is if things like 'assault' would stick on the second time. Reckless endangerment, however, probably would.... IF they insisted on moving forward with it.

[whiterussian1974]

Trooper: You've nearly hit upon the actual Process. Let's let some more post until I post how DA avoids Double Jeopardy in such instances.