Criminal Law Question

[slyc_willie]

I'm pretty sure I have this basically right, but having never run into such a case in my earlier career, I figured I'd ask for clarification from the varied backgrounds here.

Let's say I have a case in which two people planned and carried out a murder. The weapon used was a handgun, which they have both fired repeatedly. The weapon therefore has both their fingerprints on it, while they both have gunpowder residue on their hands when they are arrested.

Questioned separately, each claims the other committed the murder. It then becomes practically impossible to try either one for the crime, because the only piece of evidence implicates them both but cannot definitively prove one did it over the other.

Am I right?

 

[RedPanties]

They could both be tried, and convicted, together. But more evidence is required than a fingerprint on a gun. Even if one did the shooting, both are parties to the offence.

Motivation + Opportunity + Weapon + Body = murder.

 

[Handley_Page]

I'm pretty sure I have this basically right, but having never run into such a case in my earlier career, I figured I'd ask for clarification from the varied backgrounds here.

Let's say I have a case in which two people planned and carried out a murder. The weapon used was a handgun, which they have both fired repeatedly. The weapon therefore has both their fingerprints on it, while they both have gunpowder residue on their hands when they are arrested.

Questioned separately, each claims the other committed the murder. It then becomes practically impossible to try either one for the crime, because the only piece of evidence implicates them both but cannot definitively prove one did it over the other.

Am I right?

In the UK, I think they can be charged "severally & singly" with the crime.

,

 

[RedPanties]

In the UK, I think they can be charged "severally & singly" with the crime.

,

nod

(crim law junkie here)

 

[slyc_willie]

They could both be tried, and convicted, together. But more evidence is required than a fingerprint on a gun. Even if one did the shooting, both are parties to the offence.

Motivation + Opportunity + Weapon + Body = murder.

In the proposed scenario, there is other circumstantial evidence linking them to the crime, but the main piece of evidence is the firearm. I am aware that they could both be tried, either separately or together, but blaming each other for the crime would have to be admissible to a grand jury. Which one would they believe? Or, how likely is it that either or both would be tossed out?

In the UK, I think they can be charged "severally & singly" with the crime.

,

No offense, but moot point. The story will take place in the USA. Texas, to be exact.

 

[RedPanties]

In the proposed scenario, there is other circumstantial evidence linking them to the crime, but the main piece of evidence is the firearm. I am aware that they could both be tried, either separately or together, but blaming each other for the crime would have to be admissible to a grand jury. Which one would they believe? Or, how likely is it that either or both would be tossed out?



No offense, but moot point. The story will take place in the USA. Texas, to be exact.

Well first, no, a confession or lack there of, does not have to be put before a jury.

Second, a strong circumstantial case is probably the best kind of case, dispite what CSI has taught us.

If evidence points to both of them as the shooter, who gives a shit what they say. Most people don't actually confess to crimes you know. And they are certainly more than happy to point the finger at someone else if they think it will get them off the hook.

So sorry, if you're trying to compose a story about concoting the perfect murder, you might wish to go back to the drawing board. Or maybe rent a Hitchcock movie.

 

[slyc_willie]

Well first, no, a confession or lack there of, does not have to be put before a jury.

Second, a strong circumstantial case is probably the best kind of case, dispite what CSI has taught us.

If evidence points to both of them as the shooter, who gives a shit what they say. Most people don't actually confess to crimes you know. And they are certainly more than happy to point the finger at someone else if they think it will get them off the hook.

So sorry, if you're trying to compose a story about concoting the perfect murder, you might wish to go back to the drawing board. Or maybe rent a Hitchcock movie.

Hitchcock got as much wrong as CSI.

No, not the perfect murder, just a scene in which the two main characters, lovers, find themselves backed into a corner when they are arrested and decide on this as their best course of action. I've found a few cases similar to this scenario, in which neither defendant was charged. At least, not at the time.

Not looking for the ultimate way out, but perhaps a way for the two to be temporarily released until more evidence can be compiled.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't know about Texas law, but Iknow in CA they would both be charged equally. The identity of the actual shooter would not matter, since it was a conspiracy.

It's a fairly common occurrence for two or more people to commit a crime, and somebody commits murder in the process. All those involved are equally guilty, including the getaway driver and lookouts.

 

[3113]

Blame each other...or themselves?

Questioned separately, each claims the other committed the murder. It then becomes practically impossible to try either one for the crime, because the only piece of evidence implicates them both but cannot definitively prove one did it over the other.

I'm in agreement with others, Slyc. No one is going to let either of them off the hook just because the weapon can't implicate one or the other definitively. If it implicates them both, that will be enough. After all, the guy could have shot first, handed it to the girl, she shot, handed it back--back and forth until the victim died. Meaning both killed him equally. The question really is: was there motive? Was there conspiracy to commit murder? Was there opportunity? Could they both have done it?

But I have a sneaky suspicion that you've got the scenario wrong given what you're after. If you want to make it tough on the prosecution, then they really shouldn't be blaming each other. They should be confessing that they and they ALONE committed the murder. Then it'd be harder.

If the wife confesses: "I murdered my husband. My lover was not there, he came in after I'd killed my husband. My lover is innocent." And then the lover says, "I killed her husband, she was no where around when I did it, she came in afterwards. I'm the only one to blame...." THEN you might have a situation where it'd be tough on the jury. Because we tend to assume that if someone confesses to murder they're telling the truth, while if they try to blame someone else--even though they've got blood on their hands--they're lying.

If a suspect confesses, shouldn't that be taken as the truth? So what do you do if they both confess to being the one and only murderer of this man? That's when it become tougher.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

In most jurisdictions they can both be charged with murder. Being an accessory is the same as pulling the trigger. Another charge that could also be brought is conspiracy to commit murder.

There will be no circumstance in which the DA will let either go.

ETA: 3 has the right of it...but even though they both confess there is a conspiracy charge and both could still be prosecuted under most state laws. In the eyes of the law an accomplice is just as guilty as the perp.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SLYCK read some old detective novels by West Texan, Jim Thompson. He wrote plenty of murder stories and edited several detective magazines. His specialty was perfect crimes.

 

[jomar]

Unless you want to go with 3, make up some 1893 wild west Texas statute that some attorney pulls out of her ass that results in them not being able to be charged.

 

[cloudy]

In most states, both could be tried for capital murder. Even someone who didn't fire the gun could be charged just the same as the other. It doesn't really matter who actually pulled the trigger. They were both there, they were both involved, they both get charged.

There was a case I read about, or saw a story on, or something recently where a guy went to meet a couple of guys to sell them a handgun (illegally). The two planned to rob him, just take the gun, and so came armed. They ended up shooting at the guy, but missed completely. The first guy's friend, however, returned fire, and missed the robbers completely, but killed his friend by accident.

The guy who actually killed his friend wasn't charged with a crime at all. However, the two guys who had planned on robbing the guy were both charged with capital murder, since the killing happened during the commission of a robbery.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Unless you want to go with 3, make up some 1893 wild west Texas statute that some attorney pulls out of her ass that results in them not being able to be charged.

SLYCK's aiming for clever when readers want serious conflict that matters, plus a clever save at the end.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

In most jurisdictions in the English legal tradition, a death resulting from a felony is chargeable as murder to all and any of those involved in committing the felony, even if the death is an acccidental by product of the crime. That is, if a bystander is shot and killed by a police officer during the commission of a crime, those committing the crime are responsible for the death. And the samewould hold even if a bystander was killed, for example, by a bus as he tried to avoid a speeding getaway car.

As for a strong circumstantial case being the best, it is, unfortunately, all too often the case. And all too often results in a wrongful conviction. The aim of justice should be to identify and convict based on substantial evidence, not to try to find evidence that will convict the person thought to be guilty. It is bad enough that facts have been misinterpreted and even intentionally skewed to convict suspects, without adding to it the insult of circumstantial argument. Such is based on appearing logical and plausible; Sherlock Holmes' dictum is far better: "Once you've eliminated all the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

 

[R. Richard]

Despite what you see in TV dramas, it's very unusual to find fingerprints on a gun. The oil that's used on guns tends to level out fingerprints. The best bet would be fingerprints on the cartridges, although that runs into the same problem.

In addition, fingerprints on a gun don't mean that the person whose fingerprints are on the gun fired the gun. Similarly, powder residue on the hand doesn't mean that the person with the residue fired a specific gun.

As far as charges, in most jursidictions the fact that both persons planned the killing would make the fact of who pulled the trigger immaterial. (e.g. In an armed robbery, the person who drives the getaway car would also be guilty of a murder that occurred during said robbery.) In the Los Angeles area, there was a relevant case, many, many years ago. There was an armed robbery, duiring which only money was taken. The perps fled and the police pursued. The perps the crashed into a bystander car and killed the driver. Neither perp would admit to being the driver and the idiots who wrtie the laws then changed things so that anyone who is engaged in the commission of a crime, in any capacity, is responsible for things like a death that occurrs in the commission of said crime.

 

[slyc_willie]

Good points, everyone, and thank you. Looks like it might work better if they both confess, rather than blame the other. It won't save them from eventual prosecution, but it might keep the district attorney from charging them just yet. Throw in a political or personal angle, and I can make it work.

Very much appreciated.

 

[RedPanties]

Well if you think so... but if they both confess they are still going to be charged. Maybe they might not be convicted but I doubt it. Who the hell would release anyone that confessed to murder? Charge them all then sort it out later.

If I were the DA I would simply run the trials separately in that case.

 

[R. Richard]

Well if you think so... but if they both confess they are still going to be charged. Maybe they might not be convicted but I doubt it. Who the hell would release anyone that confessed to murder? Charge them all then sort it out later.

If I were the DA I would simply run the trials separately in that case.

It might not be practical, from a procedural viewpoint, to run two separate trials. If I were a defense lawyer and the DA ran two separate trials, I would attempt to keep pulling in things from the 'other trial,' to try to get an acquital on procedural issues.