Double Jeopardy

Good thread! I'm learning a lot.

Quote: Nareed

As I understand it, any time served in jail or prison can be credited against the actual sentence in the event of a conviction. As Rudeboyoi (how do your pronounce that, BTW?) points out this may include a future crime if you served more time than what you were sentenced for.

Can anyone else confirm or deny this? While this would seem the fair thing to do, it would also incentivize (note to Bill Gates, add "incentivize" to Word's spell checker) crime to those who are owed time by the system. For example, if someone is owed whatever time one normally gets for auto theft they could keep stealing cars until they got caught with little downside. Perhaps to avoid such a perverse incentive the system could offer to buy back the time at $x per day.

A bit off topic, but does anyone know if the principle behind the movie Double' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150377/]Double Jeopardy is true? For those who haven't seen the movie, a woman was falsely convicted of killing her husband. Meanwhile he was in hiding somewhere, after setting up the whole crime scene to frame her. When she finally finished her sentence she had no disincentive to kill him in revenge, because even if she were caught she already did her time for killing him -- in advance.

Quote: Wizard

A bit off topic, but does anyone know if the principle behind the movie Double' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150377/]Double Jeopardy is true? For those who haven't seen the movie, a woman was falsely convicted of killing her husband. Meanwhile he was in hiding somewhere, after setting up the whole crime scene to frame her. When she finally finished her sentence she had no disincentive to kill him in revenge, because even if she were caught she already did her time for killing him -- in advance.

That's wrong. I mean, it's the right plot, though I didn't see the movie, but the law is wrong. The plot hole is subtle, but big enough to throw the Wynncore through.

Let's go by parts:

1) There is such a thing as a double jeaopardy doctrine in most countries, including America, which states a defendant cannot be tried twice for the same crime. This doesn't include re-trials as a result of eihter a mistrial or an appeal, of course. Mostly what it means is that if a defendant is found not guilty of a crime, you can't prosecute him again for the same offense.

2) A crime isn't just an action against the law. The action is "murder in the first degree," say. The corresponding crime is "the murder with premeditation of John Doe on or about 8 pm on June 15th 2010, at the Echelon building site" for example.

So to solve the movie's plot realistically:

a) since the heroine was clearly not guilty of killing her husband, she was wrongfully convicted and could sue the state and get some monetary compensation
b) since the husband was clearly guilty of framing hsi wife, he can be prosecuted for that (though I'm not sure what the charge would be, at the least defrauding the police and the courts), and the wife can also sue him.
c) since fraud was performed on the police and court, there should be an investigation to determine whether there was any involvement by the police, the DA's office and even the presiding judge and his/her staff. If there was, then further prosecution is warranted.

But if the wife choses to kill her husband after being released, she'd be charged with murder commited at a diferent time and palce, even if the victim is the same.

In other words, the court would have to acknowledge the error, declare John Doe to be alive for the wife to murder him, and try her for the real murder.

I may be off on some terms, but I'm 100% certain of the facts.

Quote: Nareed

a) since the heroine was clearly not guilty of killing her husband, she was wrongfully convicted and could sue the state and get some monetary compensation.

I'm not an attorney, but I think she would have to show some kind of miscarriage of justice. For example, it is not uncommon for people to be set free from life sentences because DNA evidence is now proving their innocence, or at least creating reasonable doubt, for murders committed before such testing was available. I such cases I think the accused is given a small check, like 25K, to help get back on their feet. However, I don't think they would win a false-imprisonment lawsuit, because the system did the best it could at the time given the information available.

Quote: Wizard

I'm not an attorney, but I think she would have to show some kind of miscarriage of justice. For example, it is not uncommon for people to be set free from life sentences because DNA evidence is now proving their innocence, or at least creating reasonable doubt, for murders committed before such testing was available. I such cases I think the accused is given a small check, like 25K, to help get back on their feet. However, I don't think they would win a false-imprisonment lawsuit, because the system did the best it could at the time given the information available.

In Canada some of the people acquitted after serving many years on a false confiction are getting millions in compensation.

Quote: Wizard

I'm not an attorney, but I think she would have to show some kind of miscarriage of justice.

You're nitpicking :P

Let me ammend to "she can sue the state and maybe get some monetary compensation."

As to a miscrriage, she was accused of killing a man who was alive. That has to involve some major blunder identifying the corpse.

Quote: Wizard

A bit off topic, but does anyone know if the principle behind the movie Double' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150377/]Double Jeopardy is true?

Absolutely not! The principle behind DJ is that you cannot be tried twice for the same crime, arising out of the same set of facts and scenario. In the movie, Ashley Judd's killing of her husband the first time would be a *completely different crime* than the second time she killed him. She could of course be tried and convicted for that subsequent murder once it was made obvious that the first crime was a hoax. (The first conviction would be overturned and nullified).

Pretty silly movie--about the only saving grace is that Ashley Judd looks pretty good throughout most of it.

Quote: teddys

Absolutely not! The principle behind DJ is that you cannot be tried twice for the same crime, arising out of the same set of facts and scenario.

See? that's how much more succinct an explanation can be given by a law student :)

Quote: Wizard

A bit off topic, but does anyone know if the principle behind the movie Double' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150377/]Double Jeopardy is true? For those who haven't seen the movie, a woman was falsely convicted of killing her husband. Meanwhile he was in hiding somewhere, after setting up the whole crime scene to frame her. When she finally finished her sentence she had no disincentive to kill him in revenge, because even if she were caught she already did her time for killing him -- in advance.

Of course not. Its the most ridiculous thing ever. "Killing him" the first time was one act that was alleged to have been committed. She was erroneously found guilty. If she actually kills him a decade later, its a totally separate crime and is not being put in jeopardy twice for the same act and on the same evidence. The prosecutor can't just keep hauling someone before a new jury hoping he finally gets lucky. Prosecutor only gets one bite of the apple.

A defendant who is wrongly convicted doesn't get a free pass to do the job and then claim "double jeopardy" ... any such movie is pure Hollywood and utterly absolutely absurd.

Quote: kenarman

In Canada some of the people acquitted after serving many years on a false confiction are getting millions in compensation.

Same in the UK. I'm not sure what you can do for someone whose spent 15-20 years behind bars for a crime they didn't commit (apart from letting them form their own band of mercenaries in the LA underground).

Let's not forget that part of a prosecution's argument must include motive, which would clearly have changed.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Let's not forget that part of a prosecution's argument must include motive, which would clearly have changed.

Motive isn't a legal requirement. You have to show the defendant committed the crime, not why he did.

That said, motive is part of the crime. Therefore understanding it can lead investigators to the perpetrator. And I suppose a jury is more likely to convict if shown a motive as part of a comprehensive theory of the crime.

Or did you mean intent? The prosecution does have to show intent, because it matter a lot in various points of law. For example, if you shove someone down the stairs because you're angry at him and want to hurt him, but he dies in the process, that's manslaughter. if you push him in order to kill him, regardless of your motive for doing so, that's murder.

Quote: Wizard

I'm not an attorney, but I think she would have to show some kind of miscarriage of justice. For example, it is not uncommon for people to be set free from life sentences because DNA evidence is now proving their innocence, or at least creating reasonable doubt, for murders committed before such testing was available. I such cases I think the accused is given a small check, like 25K, to help get back on their feet. However, I don't think they would win a false-imprisonment lawsuit, because the system did the best it could at the time given the information available.

I recently saw a show on the Discovery Channel about prisoners set free due to new DNA evidence. They gave several examples of Texas prisoners who were released and received $80,000 for each year they served behind bars.

speaking of double jeopardy, i was doing time with someone who beat a charge on the federal level and is now fighting the same charge on the state level. so maybe you can only be tried once per jurisdiction but isnt federal law supposed to trump state law anyways?

Quote: rudeboyoi

speaking of double jeopardy, i was doing time with someone who beat a charge on the federal level and is now fighting the same charge on the state level. so maybe you can only be tried once per jurisdiction but isnt federal law supposed to trump state law anyways?

My understanding is that the same act can lead to varying charges at varying levels. A good example are the police officers who were tried for beating up Rodney King back in the 90s. They were tried, for use of excessive force, and acquitted by a California court. Later they were tried under Federal law for depriving King of his civil rights.

I think legally they could. Now, the morality of such double charges is something else entirely.

Quote: Nareed

That has to involve some major blunder identifying the corpse.

There was no corpse. The alleged murder happened on a boat, and he splattered his own blood all over the walls and attended to every detail to make his wife look like she did it in the boat to easily dispose of the body. Not a great movie, but not bad either. I'd give it a 7 on my 0 to 10 scale.

Quote: Wizard

There was no corpse. The alleged murder happened on a boat, and he splattered his own blood all over the walls and attended to every detail to make his wife look like she did it in the boat to easily dispose of the body. Not a great movie, but not bad either. I'd give it a 7 on my 0 to 10 scale.

I don't suppose they made a second plot hole. I mean, if there's enough blood to prove he died, he should be dead. BUt maybe there's just enough blood to prove foul play, leading to the conclusion she threw him overboard.

I shouldn't laugh. Plot holes can sneak up on you where you least expect them...

Quote: Nareed

I don't suppose they made a second plot hole. I mean, if there's enough blood to prove he died, he should be dead. BUt maybe there's just enough blood to prove foul play, leading to the conclusion she threw him overboard.

I think he accumulated his own blood in advance to splash all over the walls. Kind of like how Lance Armstrong allegedly hoarded his own blood for mid-race transfusions. I don't remember the movie well enough to confirm or deny a second plot hole. The one thing I remember clearly is Ashley Judd had a topless scene.

Quote: Wizard

The one thing I remember clearly is Ashley Judd had a topless scene.

Then I guess I'll have to see the movie!

Regarding the plot, it is difficult but not impossible to get a murder conviction without a body. I agree with everyone else, though, she was SOL on the double jeopardy thinking.

Quote: Wizard

I think he accumulated his own blood in advance to splash all over the walls. Kind of like how Lance Armstrong allegedly hoarded his own blood for mid-race transfusions. I don't remember the movie well enough to confirm or deny a second plot hole.

As I said, plot holes can often sneak up on you. Just a few days ago i found a gaping one in my novel, and I thought the basic structure of the novel settled months ago! I'll say I wasn't satisfied with portions around the hole, but I dind't know why until I finally saw the hole (which was big enough to hurl a small casino hotel through, say the Casino Royale <g>)

Quote:

The one thing I remember clearly is Ashley Judd had a topless scene.

OFF TOPIC ALERT

I understand the desire to see a woman's breasts uncovered, especially when a beautiful woman is involved. But why do married men remember such things so clearly and for so long? I mean, don't you get enough of such a view at home?

Quote: Nareed

I understand the desire to see a woman's breasts uncovered, especially when a beautiful woman is involved. But why do married men remember such things so clearly and for so long? I mean, don't you get enough of such a view at home?

Perhaps, but none of our wives look like Ashley Judd.

Quote: Nareed

I understand the desire to see a woman's breasts uncovered, especially when a beautiful woman is involved. But why do married men remember such things so clearly and for so long? I mean, don't you get enough of such a view at home?

That would be like asking an art enthusiast, "You have a nice painting on your wall at home, why are here at the Louvre' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://www.louvre.fr/llv/commun/home.jsp?bmLocale=en]Louvre looking at others?"

There are so many shapes and sizes you can look at hundreds of them and still appreciate another pair.

Quote: Wizard

There are so many shapes and sizes you can look at hundreds of them and still appreciate another pair.

LOL..ain't that the truth!

Quote: Wizard

There are so many shapes and sizes you can look at hundreds of them and still appreciate another pair.

Not that many shapes.

Still, just about every man I know can tell which movies he's seen with a topless scene. Mainstream movies as opposed to porn, I mean. Why the fixation?

Quote: rudeboyoi

speaking of double jeopardy, i was doing time with someone who beat a charge on the federal level and is now fighting the same charge on the state level. so maybe you can only be tried once per jurisdiction but isnt federal law supposed to trump state law anyways?

You've hit on the one of the few aspects of double jeopardy that is actually relevant, and that there is still a lot of debate and case law about.

The Supreme Court has said that the federal and state governments are "separate sovereigns" and that you can be tried in both federal and state court for the same crime (same fact situation, same charge). This is how the Rodney King officers were acquitted in state court and convicted in federal court, for example.

It's kind of strained reasoning, and some commentators have called for the "separate sovereigns" doctrine to be overturned.

The state charges involved a beating. The federal charges only involved depriving him of his civil rights by beating him. Two totally separate charges.

Dual sovereigns doctrine also applies to crimes committed abroad. The Scuba Diver who drowned his wife on a honeymoon dive in Australia faced charges in Australia and in Georgia.

Quote: teddys

Pretty silly movie--about the only saving grace is that Ashley Judd looks pretty good throughout most of it.

This. :)

Quote: Nareed

Still, just about every man I know can tell which movies he's seen with a topless scene. Mainstream movies as opposed to porn, I mean. Why the fixation?

Including me. Coincidentally, they attempted to answer this question Monday on the Today Show. The consensus answer was that because breasts in the US are censored, and treated like forbidden fruit, it just piques the interest more. I tend to go along with that theory.

On Monday, I had a conversation with an attorney regarding double jeopardy, specifically in relation to a comment I heard about the Casey Anthony case, thus the majority of this thread didn't interest me. However,

Quote: Wizard

Can anyone else confirm or deny this? While this would seem the fair thing to do, it would also incentivize (note to Bill Gates, add "incentivize" to Word's spell checker) crime to those who are owed time by the system. For example, if someone is owed whatever time one normally gets for auto theft they could keep stealing cars until they got caught with little downside. Perhaps to avoid such a perverse incentive the system could offer to buy back the time at $x per day.

I was interested by this. It would appear to not be wise to allow someone to "bank" jail time and use it as a way to commit future crimes.

Quote:

Furthermore, said Brown, a defendant is not entitled as a matter of law to credit against his second sentence.

Quote:

The one sentence to which CTS is applied must be “directly related” to the initial crime of arrest; if it is not, there is no credit at all according to ORS 137.370(4).

While it appears that every state has its own laws regarding the issue of credit for time served, it would seem logical to me that they wouldn't allow people to apply time served credit to some future crime, much as the Oregon law (in the previous link).

I would be interested in learning what states, if any, do allow someone to apply credit for time served on a non-related crime to be applied to some future crime.

Quote: Wizard

Including me. Coincidentally, they attempted to answer this question Monday on the Today Show. The consensus answer was that because breasts in the US are censored, and treated like forbidden fruit, it just piques the interest more. I tend to go along with that theory.

That theory sounds good until you realize that 1) it mostly doesn't apply to married men, 2) it doesn't apply at all to men who "read" magazines like Playboy on a regular basis, 3) In our internet era finding soft porn is too easy and cheap, when it isn't free.

No, I think there's something about topless scenes in movies in particular that touches on men's minds or perceptions. Maybe it's an unexpected treat, maybe it's something else.

Quote: Nareed

No, I think there's something about topless scenes in movies in particular that touches on men's minds or perceptions. Maybe it's an unexpected treat, maybe it's something else.

There's something about a movie alright. I once saw only one single scene from a Western in which the bad guys were trying to rape a woman. The good guys showed up just in time I guess, but the bloomers of the woman get pulled down to reveal a delightful derriere. I was struck that the scene was scandalous and improper, but it remains with me to this day, often appearing in my mind's eye unbidden. I have no idea what the name of that movie was.