Here is a good one from Law and Order

Ten years ago A is convicted of killing B but the body was never found

Forward ten years to current time and A has served his sentence. B is
now found recently murdered two days ago

A is questioned and confesses to killing B now but claims double
jeopardy and false imprisonment since he was innocent of the crime he
was convicted 10 years ago and served time for.

The TV show never gets the legal answer since C is found to be B's real
killer and the false imprisonment is never settled.

There was also a movie entitled Double Jeopardy.

Thoughts?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:u4mri2$3bspr$1@dont-email.me...

Here is a good one from Law and Order

Ten years ago A is convicted of killing B but the body was never found

Forward ten years to current time and A has served his sentence. B is now >found recently murdered two days ago

A is questioned and confesses to killing B now but claims double jeopardy
and false imprisonment since he was innocent of the crime he was convicted
10 years ago and served time for.

The TV show never gets the legal answer since C is found to be B's real >killer and the false imprisonment is never settled.

There was also a movie entitled Double Jeopardy.

Thoughts?

It's not double jeopardy because it is two different crimes. The first was
the killing of Person A 10 years ago (which apparently turned out not to
have actually happened) and the second was the killing of person A two days ago. It's like if the exact same bank is robbed at two different times,
it is two different crimes.

What makes this case interesting is that double jeopardy normally applies to someone being found innocent of a crime and then later charged for the same crime. I've never heard of it used when the person is actually convicted
the first time. People are often tried multiple times for the same crime following a conviction. In this case, if person A had been found innocent
10 years ago and then tried again when B was murdered two days ago - that would have been a more interesting double jeopardy situation, though I would still say it is two different crimes.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 24 May 2023 22:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Here is a good one from Law and Order

Ten years ago A is convicted of killing B but the body was never found

Forward ten years to current time and A has served his sentence. B is
now found recently murdered two days ago

A is questioned and confesses to killing B now but claims double
jeopardy and false imprisonment since he was innocent of the crime he
was convicted 10 years ago and served time for.

The TV show never gets the legal answer since C is found to be B's real >killer and the false imprisonment is never settled.

There was also a movie entitled Double Jeopardy.

Thoughts?

This was also the theme of an episode of Highway Patrol, except since
they only had 30 minutes, Matthews stopped him before he killed the guy.

In your case, I think A should be charged with mistreatment of a dead
body.



--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/24/2023 10:29 PM, Roy wrote:

Here is a good one from Law and Order

Ten years ago A is convicted of killing B but the body was never found

Forward ten years to current time and A has served his sentence.  B is
now found recently murdered two days ago

A is questioned and confesses to killing B now but claims double
jeopardy and false imprisonment since he was innocent of the crime he
was convicted 10 years ago and served time for.

The TV show never gets the legal answer since C is found to be B's real killer and the false imprisonment is never settled.

There was also a movie entitled Double Jeopardy.

Thoughts?

That's an interesting one for the real lawyers. My layman's take:
committing crime X on date A and committing crime X on date B, where A
and B are years apart, are not "the same offense".

Consider if somebody robs a store on May 25, 2010. He is caught,
convicted, and serves time in prison. Eventually he is released, and he
robs the same store on May 25, 2023. Double jeopardy does not apply:
these are separate offenses. In fact, he could rob the same store on two successive days and be convicted of both.


--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Here is a good one from Law and Order

Ten years ago A is convicted of killing B but the body was never
found

Forward ten years to current time and A has served his sentence.
B is now found recently murdered two days ago

A is questioned and confesses to killing B now but claims double
jeopardy and false imprisonment since he was innocent of the crime
he was convicted 10 years ago and served time for.

The TV show never gets the legal answer since C is found to be B's
real killer and the false imprisonment is never settled.

There was also a movie entitled Double Jeopardy.

Thoughts?

Interesting question, and in theory it should be double jeopardy.
However in fact it's not. The actual killing, even if done by the
people accused of killing the guy earlier, is considered a separate
act, a separate crime. So there's no double jeopardy.

I actually have a vague recollection of seeing a case like that, and
that's where my conclusion comes from.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

On 5/24/2023 10:29 PM, Roy wrote:

Here is a good one from Law and Order

Ten years ago A is convicted of killing B but the body was never
found

Forward ten years to current time and A has served his
sentence.  B is now found recently murdered two days ago

A is questioned and confesses to killing B now but claims double
jeopardy and false imprisonment since he was innocent of the
crime he was convicted 10 years ago and served time for.

The TV show never gets the legal answer since C is found to be
B's real killer and the false imprisonment is never settled.

There was also a movie entitled Double Jeopardy.

Thoughts?

That's an interesting one for the real lawyers. My layman's take:
committing crime X on date A and committing crime X on date B,
where A and B are years apart, are not "the same offense".

Consider if somebody robs a store on May 25, 2010. He is caught,
convicted, and serves time in prison. Eventually he is released,
and he robs the same store on May 25, 2023. Double jeopardy does
not apply: these are separate offenses. In fact, he could rob the
same store on two successive days and be convicted of both.

Your analogy would be closer if the person in your example steals an
expensive piece of jewelry. When he's released from jail that same
piece of jewelry is still in the store's collection, so he steals it
again.

But I agree with you - they are two separate crimes, even if the
first one turned out not to have actually happened.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:07:45 -0700 (PDT),
"Stuart O. Bronstein" <hast1065@yahoo.com> wrote:

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Here is a good one from Law and Order

Ten years ago A is convicted of killing B but the body was never
found

Forward ten years to current time and A has served his sentence.
B is now found recently murdered two days ago

A is questioned and confesses to killing B now but claims double
jeopardy and false imprisonment since he was innocent of the crime
he was convicted 10 years ago and served time for.

The TV show never gets the legal answer since C is found to be B's
real killer and the false imprisonment is never settled.

There was also a movie entitled Double Jeopardy.

Thoughts?

Interesting question, and in theory it should be double jeopardy.
However in fact it's not. The actual killing, even if done by the
people accused of killing the guy earlier, is considered a separate
act, a separate crime. So there's no double jeopardy.

I actually have a vague recollection of seeing a case like that, and
that's where my conclusion comes from.

Of course I defer to all the other answers, whether by lawyers or not,
but I do think that if found guilty, whatever sentence he would get
should have deducted from it the time he's served for the first charge.

(If he's sentenced to death, I don't know how to do the subtraction.)

Paying for mistaken verdicts, like NYS does in some cases (maybe only improprieties by the prosecution? although I think the Central Park N
got some sort of payment and I didn't think there was any misbehaviour
on the part of the prosecution there. )... payments are nice but it
doesn't give the person back the part of his life that he lost.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/25/2023 11:23 AM, micky wrote:

Paying for mistaken verdicts, like NYS does in some cases (maybe only improprieties by the prosecution? although I think the Central Park N
got some sort of payment and I didn't think there was any misbehaviour
on the part of the prosecution there. )... payments are nice but it
doesn't give the person back the part of his life that he lost.

Currently, 38 states plus the District of Columbia have statutes to
compensate exonerees for their wrongful convictions, The US federal
payment is $50K per year.

A recent law exempts these payments from income tax

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 25 May 2023 11:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

On 5/25/2023 11:23 AM, micky wrote:

Paying for mistaken verdicts, like NYS does in some cases (maybe only
improprieties by the prosecution? although I think the Central Park N
got some sort of payment and I didn't think there was any misbehaviour
on the part of the prosecution there. )... payments are nice but it
doesn't give the person back the part of his life that he lost.

Currently, 38 states plus the District of Columbia have statutes to >compensate exonerees for their wrongful convictions, The US federal
payment is $50K per year.

A recent law exempts these payments from income tax

Thanks

I never know whether I'm supposed to respond to posts with pleasantries
or "housekeeping" like "thanks". It sseems to make extra work for the moderator and extra clutter in the browser.

If this were an unmoderated group, I'd usually do it, but I notice that
almost no one else does.

So what do people here expect?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 25 May 2023 11:47:49 -0700, Roy wrote:

On 5/25/2023 11:23 AM, micky wrote:

Paying for mistaken verdicts, like NYS does in some cases (maybe only
improprieties by the prosecution? although I think the Central Park N
got some sort of payment and I didn't think there was any misbehaviour
on the part of the prosecution there. )... payments are nice but it
doesn't give the person back the part of his life that he lost.

Currently, 38 states plus the District of Columbia have statutes to compensate exonerees for their wrongful convictions, The US federal
payment is $50K per year.

A recent law exempts these payments from income tax

Compare and contrast with the UK where compensation isn't automatic and moreover has board and lodging deducted from it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/25/2023 5:38 PM, micky wrote:

...

Thanks

I never know whether I'm supposed to respond to posts with pleasantries
or "housekeeping" like "thanks". It sseems to make extra work for the moderator and extra clutter in the browser.

If this were an unmoderated group, I'd usually do it, but I notice that almost no one else does.

So what do people here expect?

I don't expect anything.

It does take a minute or two of my time to approve it.

The other side effect is that you can't erase the message from USENET
Most USENET servers don't accept the "cancel" message. Even if your
local server erases the message it probably won't propagate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)