A trial for which there is no effective penalty
NadCixelsyd
Mr. X is convicted for murder in a 1980 armed robbery. The sentence
is 98 years. In 2002, the police finally solve an unrelated 1958
murder during an armed robbery. It is discovered that Mr. X committed
the 1958 murder, too. So they put Mr. X on trial for the 1958 murder.
There is no death penalty in question, so why bother with the second
trial? The police and the victim's family are convinced that Mr. X is
the perpetrator so the invesitgation would cease.
Now, in this particular case, for the 1958 murder, the judge excluded
all of Mr. X's criminal record; his armed roberies and previous
murder. While the jury thought he was guilty, they could not convict,
"beyond a reasonable doubt". An additional question... If, on the
off chance that this guy ever comes up for parole, can the parole
board consider the 1958 murder while knowing all the facts about Mr.
X's past?
Barry Gold
>In watching a documentary, could someone explain:
>
>Mr. X is convicted for murder in a 1980 armed robbery. The sentence
>is 98 years. In 2002, the police finally solve an unrelated 1958
>murder during an armed robbery. It is discovered that Mr. X committed
>the 1958 murder, too. So they put Mr. X on trial for the 1958 murder.
>
>There is no death penalty in question, so why bother with the second
>trial? The police and the victim's family are convinced that Mr. X is
>the perpetrator so the invesitgation would cease.
Let's say that Mr. X appeals his conviction for the 1980 armed
robbery, and is successful. In the meantime, some of the witnesses
have died or moved away, so it is difficult to convict him a second
time. If he's also convicted of the 1958 murder, he will stay in
prison regardless of what happens to the verdict in the 1980 case.
>Now, in this particular case, for the 1958 murder, the judge excluded
>all of Mr. X's criminal record; his armed roberies and previous
>murder. While the jury thought he was guilty, they could not convict,
>"beyond a reasonable doubt". An additional question... If, on the
>off chance that this guy ever comes up for parole, can the parole
>board consider the 1958 murder while knowing all the facts about Mr.
>X's past?
That seems to depend on the laws of the particular state. In many
places, parole hearings are informal: the parole board can consider
hearsay evidence, and may also be allowed to consider things like the
accusation of the 1958 murder, even though he was not convicted.
This can get tricky, and the right strategy is very fact- and state-
dependent. I suspect that in some states, the Parole Board _would_
be allowed to consider evidence of the 1958 murder *if* Mr. X was
never tried for it. But if Mr. X is tried and found Innocent, the
1958 murder might not be allowed to be presented to the Parole Board
(because the trial result is considered conclusive). SO there are
times when it is better *not* to try him for that crime, and (as I
mentioned above) times when it is better to try him.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
Gordon Burditt
>
>Mr. X is convicted for murder in a 1980 armed robbery. The sentence
>is 98 years. In 2002, the police finally solve an unrelated 1958
>murder during an armed robbery. It is discovered that Mr. X committed
>the 1958 murder, too. So they put Mr. X on trial for the 1958 murder.
>
>There is no death penalty in question, so why bother with the second
>trial?
To delay his getting out on parole. Also, it may give some finality
to any surviving relatives of the victim.
>The police and the victim's family are convinced that Mr. X is
>the perpetrator so the invesitgation would cease.
>Now, in this particular case, for the 1958 murder, the judge excluded
>all of Mr. X's criminal record; his armed roberies and previous
>murder. While the jury thought he was guilty, they could not convict,
>"beyond a reasonable doubt".
Which does NOT necessarily mean that they would have convicted had
his previous record been admissible. And just because he had armed
robberies and a murder on his record doesn't mean he commited the
murder he's on trial for.
>An additional question... If, on the
>off chance that this guy ever comes up for parole, can the parole
>board consider the 1958 murder while knowing all the facts about Mr.
>X's past?
I would certainly hope that a murder for which the man was found NOT
GUILTY cannot be held against him.
Seth
> But if Mr. X is tried and found Innocent,
That doesn't happen in the US. He's found "Not (proven to be)
guilty".
Seth
Barry Gold
>> But if Mr. X is tried and found Innocent,
Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>That doesn't happen in the US. He's found "Not (proven to be)
>guilty".
Varies by state. In some states, the verdict is, literally,
"Innocent". In any case, the legal effect is the same: he is not
guilty for criminal purposes and cannot be retried on those charges or
any lesser included offense. I suspect that in most cases, that would
preclude accusing him of the same charges in a parole hearing.
Mike Jacobs
> In article <1259817956.922...@irys.nyx.net>, Barry Gold <bg...@nyx.net> wrote:
> > But if Mr. X is tried and found Innocent,
>
> That doesn't happen in the US. He's found "Not (proven to be)
> guilty".
Agreed, Seth. I comment here only to mention my curiosity that you
can hold such a sophisticated, relativistic view of the law in this
context, recognizing that "guilt" and "innocence" in the binary,
mutually-exclusive, it-is-what-it-is and it-exists-whether-the-court-
says-so-or-not, "sins against G-d" sense, are concepts only vaguely
related to the outcome of a legal procedure, where there are _only_
shades of grey, and where the only binary result that can be said of a
given factual element (in a criminal case) is "proven beyond a
reasonable doubt" (covering the range from pretty-dark-grey to almost-
black) or "not so proven" (covering every _other_ shade of grey, from
not-quite-dark-enough-to-convict all the way to almost-white). At
law, things are _never_ "black" or "white."
I contrast this with the position you have been taking over in the
"Can I be convicted of theft for taking back my own property?" thread,
where the position you espouse is that "ownership" of a thing is some
absolutely determinable quality that exists independent of the
judgment of anyone but the purported owner's (and G-d's), and (in your
view) doesn't need a court trial to pin it down (a'la Schrodinger's
Cat) at which point "ownership" can finally be deemed determined and
declared.
Or, was either that position, OR this one, just a position you were
taking _arguendo_, for purposes of argument, to see what responses it
would get you? If this is your Socratic way of poking holes in
_whatever_ position the other guy is taking, even though that appears
to leave YOU holding logically inconsistent positions, I tend to
suspect that is what's happening in both instances.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Seth
Mike Jacobs <mjaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Agreed, Seth. I comment here only to mention my curiosity that you
>can hold such a sophisticated, relativistic view of the law in this
>context, recognizing that "guilt" and "innocence" in the binary,
>mutually-exclusive, it-is-what-it-is and it-exists-whether-the-court-
>says-so-or-not, "sins against G-d" sense, are concepts only vaguely
>related to the outcome of a legal procedure,
That's my position exactly: there are facts. There are results of
legal process. The latter are supposed to depend on the former; in
reality, there tends to be a pretty good correlation.
> where there are _only_ shades of grey,
The _outcome_ is from a very limited set, and usually black and white
(guilty or not guilty, with some chance of mistrial or hung jury).
> and where the only binary result that can be said of a
>given factual element (in a criminal case) is "proven beyond a
>reasonable doubt" (covering the range from pretty-dark-grey to almost-
>black) or "not so proven" (covering every _other_ shade of grey, from
>not-quite-dark-enough-to-convict all the way to almost-white).
I believe that can be said only of the decision elements (is the
defendant guilty of a particular crime?) There are many sub-elements
that go into those determinations, which themselves aren't necessarily
determined that way.
> At law, things are _never_ "black" or "white."
But the results pretend they are.
>I contrast this with the position you have been taking over in the
>"Can I be convicted of theft for taking back my own property?" thread,
>where the position you espouse is that "ownership" of a thing is some
>absolutely determinable quality that exists independent of the
>judgment of anyone but the purported owner's (and G-d's),
Ownership (as defined by law applied to actual reality) is an absolute
quality.
It is not absolutely determinable. The law pretends that it is.
> and (in your view) doesn't need a court trial to pin it down (a'la
>Schrodinger's Cat) at which point "ownership" can finally be deemed
>determined and declared.
If necessary, a court trial will pin it down (see the pretense above).
>Or, was either that position, OR this one, just a position you were
>taking _arguendo_, for purposes of argument, to see what responses it
>would get you?
I believe my positions are consistent. Reality is what it is. A
court determines what it determines. That often matches reality.
Seth
Seth
>Varies by state. In some states, the verdict is, literally,
>"Innocent".
Which?
> In any case, the legal effect is the same: he is not
>guilty for criminal purposes and cannot be retried on those charges or
>any lesser included offense.
In criminal court.
> I suspect that in most cases, that would
>preclude accusing him of the same charges in a parole hearing.
Shall we wait until OJ is eligible for parole on the robbery charges
and see if that applies? I believe that a parole board may consider
whatever it wishes.
Seth