escaping prosecution because oops

[Zeb_Carter]

What Bramblethorn said. You're wrong.

The law doesn't always make sense, but don't start with the assumption that it's insane. What you're proposing is insane. I'm not an expert on this topic, but if you can't cite an example of a court ruling this way then you have no basis for saying this.

Double Jeopardy attaches when someone is charged twice for the same crime arising from the same set of facts. If I'm tried for committing murder of person A in 2000 and it turns out person A didn't die, it doesn't mean I can't be prosecuted for actually murdering person A in 2010. To say otherwise is totally nuts.

The supreme court case of Blockburger v. United States, which I found on Wikipedia, makes this point. The defendant was charged with five different counts of selling narcotics under the same law based on sales to the same third party. Defendant was acquitted of three counts, but retried on the other two. The Supreme court said that Double Jeopardy didn't apply even though it was the same crime and the same parties because it was a separate sale, meaning a separate transaction and separate set of facts.

Murdering person A 10 years after the first phony murder obviously is a separate set of facts. No Double Jeopardy.

Nope ... Blockburger just allows trail on multiple crimes committed at the same time. Not at two different times.

 

[SimonDoom]

Nope ... Blockburger just allows trail on multiple crimes committed at the same time. Not at two different times.

I don't understand what that means.

It's not that complicated -- two acts of "murder" committed at two completely different times based on different facts are not the same "offense" and therefore Double Jeopardy doesn't apply. That's what the law says. If you can think of some law that says something different, then, by all means, cite it.

 

[Hypoxia]

Sounds like the right material for Hypoxia!

I had not expected to spark an extended legal convo, nor thought of Statute of Limitations nor Double Jeopardy issues. Let's return to my query, maybe after reading Declared Death In Absentia on Wikipedia.

Who issues a death declaration? A court, when petitioned. If a declaration is contested, it's judged by a higher court, and possibly appealed higher. When the undead later reappears and commits crime (hopefully non-capital) they can argue that they're DEAD until the highest court rules otherwise -- a lower court can't overturn a higher judgment. And they can't be held in custody because they're DEAD. (Expect the undead's attorneys to weave some fancy excuses, and a drunk or rotten judge.)

That legal notion (not theory) should be enough for smut, which is why I ask.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Your link doesn't say what you think it says. What it says is that double jeopardy doesn't apply when you commit a crime within a crime.

If you rob a 7/11 and kill the clerk you can be charge with both crimes. That links talks about crimes committed during the same offence. Not crimes done during two separate events.

The links is about crimes committed during the same event.

It certainly does also discuss that point, but note:

the government may prosecute an individual for more than one criminal offense stemming from a single course of conduct only when each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not

If I am charged with murdering John P. Smith in 1995, and also with murdering the same John P. Smith in 2015, it's pretty clear that each of those counts requires "proof of a fact the other does not". In fact, each of those counts requires proof of a fact that contradicts the other count - that's just about the OPPOSITE of double jeopardy.

It's also pretty arguable whether those two would count as a "single course of conduct".

Nope ... Blockburger just allows trail on multiple crimes committed at the same time. Not at two different times.

Blockburger doesn't "allow" trial on multiple crimes committed at different times, because it doesn't need to - in the real legal system (as opposed to Hollywood) there's never been any question that this is possible.

If I attempt to murder John P. Smith in 1995, and then attempt to murder him again in 2015, it's obvious that I can be tried for both of those counts, even though both cases are "attempted murder of John P. Smith". (Were the law not so, you bet people would be exploiting that loophole, and it would very quickly be changed.)

I'm not aware of any law that says murder charges work differently to attempted murder in this regard. There is an obvious practical difference, that it's impossible to actually murder the same person twice, but is there any statute or court precedent that makes that issue pertinent to double jeopardy?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I don't understand what that means.

It's not that complicated -- two acts of "murder" committed at two completely different times based on different facts are not the same "offense" and therefore Double Jeopardy doesn't apply. That's what the law says. If you can think of some law that says something different, then, by all means, cite it.

It is the same offense, just committed years apart.. Murder of John Doe. For which I was tried and found guilty of in 1975. I served 10 years of a 25 year sentence. Found John Doe alive and killed him... Murder of John Doe. Facts, John Doe was thought to have been killed by me the first time, no body was found. Fact, John Doe was found dead. Double Jeopardy does apply.

I have read no case law where they would prosecute the second murder of the same person.

 

[LexxRuthless]

Perhaps a believable premise: A person regains consciousness in a morgue. Their heart had stopped and all vital signs had ceased. The body was on a slab awaiting autopsy when their heart spontaneously restarted. Because the person's brain activity ceased for so long, there has been some damage. Now amnesia has set in and the person stumbles out of the morgue, unaware of who he/she is.

As long as the person doesn't get caught in the act of "borrowing" the car, the fingerprints would seem to indicate that the car was taken before he/she died. Likewise, anyone recognizing the peeping dead guy/girl would think they had seen a ghost. Might work for a story without going the sci-fi/fantasy route.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It is the same offense, just committed years apart.. Murder of John Doe. For which I was tried and found guilty of in 1975. I served 10 years of a 25 year sentence. Found John Doe alive and killed him... Murder of John Doe.

...so by the same logic, if you assault John Doe in 1975, go to prison for it, and then assault him again as soon as you get out, you can't be tried for it again because "Assault of John Doe" is the same offense? Do you seriously believe this?

Do you seriously believe that "killed John Doe in 1975" and "killed John Doe in 1985" are the same facts?

I have read no case law where they would prosecute the second murder of the same person.

So what case law have you read where they wouldn't prosecute?

 

[SimonDoom]

It is the same offense, just committed years apart.. Murder of John Doe. For which I was tried and found guilty of in 1975. I served 10 years of a 25 year sentence. Found John Doe alive and killed him... Murder of John Doe. Facts, John Doe was thought to have been killed by me the first time, no body was found. Fact, John Doe was found dead. Double Jeopardy does apply.

I have read no case law where they would prosecute the second murder of the same person.

You're not going to find case law because what you are arguing is both nuts and is inconsistent with the existing case law. No one would ever argue this in a real case, and that's why you won't find any law on the subject. You've got it backwards. Unless you can come up with an example of someone who successfully invoked the Double Jeopardy clause in a situation like this one, there's no reason to believe it would apply.

For Double Jeopardy to apply, it must not only be the same "offense" in the sense of being the same type of crime involving the same parties, but it must also be the same set of facts. A murder that happens 10 years later after the first alleged one would be a completely different set of facts. Therefore, Double Jeopardy would not apply. Read the cases. That's what they say. Read the article I cited. That's what it says. Unless you can find an example of a person who successfully invoked the Double Jeopardy clause in a situation similar to this, you have no reason to believe it would apply.

And, again, use your common sense. A legal doctrine that would allow someone to avoid conviction for murdering someone because of something that happened 10 years earlier would be nonsensical. No judge would rule such a thing.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Okay have it your way.