Double-jeopardy DOES apply - Fracture (2007) Discussion

[–] Jyveturkey 14 years ago

Yay

Go s!

reply

[–] mlspaur 14 years ago

"...there is still no murder, as she didn't die because of him shooting the gun."

If he didn't shoot the gun, she wouldn't have been in the coma. There's a direct causal effect between the shooting and her death.

reply

[–] mulhollandpsycho 14 years ago

Yes, welcome to American law.

Scenario:
Two men rob a bank and flee via vehicle, run red lights, stop signs, and lead police officers on a high-speed chase. They hit the brakes and almost hit a female pedestrian. Said pedestrian suffers a fatal heart attack on the scene.

Both men are charged for her murder, because it is a death resulting from the the men committing multiple felonious acts.

They didn't hit her with the car, they didn't touch her in the slightest. But they are still criminally liable for her death. It is murder.

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

They hit the brakes and almost hit a female pedestrian. Said pedestrian suffers a fatal heart attack on the scene.

Both men are charged for her murder, because it is a death resulting from the the men committing multiple felonious acts.

Manslaughter yes, murder no.

reply

[–] JeffAtlanta2004 14 years ago

Manslaughter yes, murder no.

No, it would be "murder" because of the insane felony murder statutes.

It's unfortunate that state legislatures are redefining the concept of "murder", but unfortunately they get to make the rules.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 10 years ago

Doesnt murder have to be planned and or wanted?

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

Doesnt murder have to be planned and or wanted?

Nope. You don't even have to commit the act. An actual example:

Two guys try to rob a liquor store. Owner pulls a gun and fatally wounds one of the robbers. The other robber is charged with the murder of his accomplice.

A more recent one was the Stockton shootout. The cops fired over 600 rounds at a hostage, killing her. They then charged the hostage taker with her murder.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 9 years ago

Interesting and weird. ---Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] andrew_murn 9 years ago

Yes to murder - IMHO.

A few decades ago, American law was changed to cover death caused during the committal of a deliberate criminal act, whether the death was intentional or not.

It's normally referred to as Felony Murder.

reply

[–] filompra 12 years ago

Yeah, it's manslaughter

reply

[–] Kalamata 14 years ago

There is so much wrong with the supposed "gotcha" that ends the movie, but the Double Jeopardy is the worst. It must apply. If he was acquitted of a lesser crime of attempted murder under the same set of circumstances can he be tried for the greater crime of murder later? And even if somehow the DA was willing to refile under the new charge, there is too much wrong with the case, it's tainted. The Poison Tree's leaves and rotten fruit are all over the place.

Also, it is plausible the Nunnally is the one who shot Jennifer and then commited suicide later. At least if I were the defense attorney I would certainly propose that possibility. Switching guns could have been something that Nunnally did (he's not there to dispute that fact), and Crawford's fingerprints on the shell casings is easily explained in that scenario. Because of this - what I believe to be - weak ending, I had to downgrade my ranking to a five from an eight. I hate tricky endings that don't really work.

reply

[–] cooluser020 14 years ago

there is an entry in the trivia section....maybe that answers the question why DJ does not apply.

"Near the end, the case Beachum reviews regarding double jeopardy is People v. Bivens, 282 Cal. Rptr. 438, 231 Cal. App. 3d (Cal. Ct. App., 1991). Under Bivens, California can prosecute Crawford for murder, even though it arises out of the same transaction as a defendant's prior case. "

Any comments?

reply

[–] FeistyCadavr 13 years ago

"Near the end, the case Beachum reviews regarding double jeopardy is People v. Bivens, 282 Cal. Rptr. 438, 231 Cal. App. 3d (Cal. Ct. App., 1991). Under Bivens, California can prosecute Crawford for murder, even though it arises out of the same transaction as a defendant's prior case. "

/thread should have ended here.

reply

[–] RynoII 11 years ago

what about the bullet pulled out of her head after she died, like Beacham said? Doesn't that count as new evidence?

reply

[–] Tarquin_Q_Zanzibar 10 years ago

And of course a brand new. voluntary confession, as I assume that either Beachum was wearing a wire or the other officers were listening when Crawford bragged about his actions at the end. There would seem to be little purpose to Beachum's delay in arresting him unless it were specifically to get him to admit his guilt.

"Oh good, my dog found the chainsaw..."

reply

[–] decoy000 11 years ago

ikr, a movie actually bothered to cite precedent and these guys ignore it.

reply

[–] AlphaNoodle 10 years ago

Pretty sure this ends this debate.

reply

[–] aautuori 9 years ago

In my opinion, Crawford could legally pull the plug on his wife just
because he was acquitted of charges of attempted murder.
But after she died they could extract the bullet and prove that Crawford actually
shot his wife with officer Nunnally’s gun. Now, given that the coma was a direct result of the gun shot,
he wouldn't have got the legal capacity to pull the plug on his wife, so it’s murder.

reply

[–] fluffchop 14 years ago

The bullet in her head support Nunnally as having shot her anyway, so bring on the second trial biatch!!. Not that there would be one anyway. THat just urked me about the movie. It was great until that ending scene which was totally bs to me.

reply

[–] unreal_boy4924 14 years ago

Yeah, I'm sure no one saw him in his bureau. Especially not dozens of trained and qualified police officers..

Maybe... maybe he found a secret passway out of the house without anyone, including the owners, knowing its existence. Therefore, plausibly placing him at the scene of the attempted murder.... Please... You're BS to me..

reply

[–] quiet_tranquility 13 years ago

Double Jeopardy or not, Crawford was so smart and calculating the whole time that being left for such an idiot at the end was the real BS. I mean, he should have seen it coming like he did see everything else. How could he not double check if the bullet was there, if the law would let him get away? It was complete BS. Besides that, the movie was really enjoyable.

reply

[–] dark_frances 10 years ago

It's not BS, it's just that Crawford was flawed as well. I believe that's part of the point.

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder

reply

[–] nennes2 9 years ago

If you do not mind me saying so, but he was to full of himself to realize the full picture. He also expressed and called Beachum a winner in the beginning. Well he certainly saw himself as a winner and Beachum as a looser. That's the first step to the fall.

reply

[–] littlemissmilitary 12 years ago

It is not plausible that Nunnally shot Jennifer. The timing is all wrong.

Firstly, there was the witness, Crawford's gardener, to the sound of gunfire when Crawford shot Jennifer and the shots Crawford sent through the glass to drive the gardener away.

Secondly, when Nunnally arrived at the scene, after being called in as a hostage negotiator, there was a large number of police personnel at the house who were witness to there being NO gunshots fired after Nunnally entered the house.

Thirdly, after Crawford shot Jennifer, he spent a considerable period of time disposing of his clothes, washing the gunpowder residue off himself, dragging Jennifer's body to its new position, and who knows what else. The police presence had obviously been outside the house for some time when Nunnally arrived at the scene. It was twilight when Crawford shot her and totally dark when Nunnally finally entered the house. From a medical point of view, during all that length of time, Jennifer's blood would have started to coagulate on the floor, her wound would have slowed its bleeding, and her vital signs would have started to change from immediate trauma and shock to brain death by the time the paramedics attended her, all of which would have attested to the fact that she had been shot quite some time before Nunnally entered the house.

Finally, a defence attorney would also have to establish a motive for Nunnally to switch guns. There isn't one, as switching guns eliminates Crawford, and why would Nunnally do that?

reply

[–] ViktorSchwartz 14 years ago

No guy

you are no law students

you are freaking moron because you no understand, that law in europe not same as america or california - ask mr polanskis my friend

you say double jeopardies same but it is not

is not same from california to nevada

so please, you need to study golden rule =- little knowledge = dangerous thing my friend

You is The Schwartz. I am the Schwartz.

reply

[–] btzarevski 14 years ago

Right, I'm no lawyer but have discussed this at considerable length with a lawyer and here is my opinion. The whole point of Gosling saying 'you had to pull the plug didn't you' was that now with her dead they could extract the bullet and show Hopkins shot her (remember he shot her with his gun before the switch). However, he cannot be tried for murder because he was in his full legal capacity as her husband to pull the plug as a form of euthanasia and end her suffering. She didn't die as a result of him shooting her; she was put in a coma from him shooting her and hence it is attempted murder...which he was already acquitted of! So by having the bullet, they can just prove that he attempted to kill her but he has already been acquitted of that and so double jeopardy applies.

I loved this movie up until the ending and it completely ruined it for me! If they'd just made Hopkins get away with (as he should have) it would've been a terrific movie!

reply

[–] unreal_boy4924 14 years ago

The fact that he could pull "legally" the plug is a direct result from the attempted murder. Cause - consequence are both linked to him.

I think double-jeopardy is up for interpretation. It does not "apply", it's interpreted and then applied (or not). Law 101.

reply

[–] icedragon987 14 years ago

That is a complete opinion. Most would say she DID die as a result of him shooting her. DJ isn't "applied". Any judge would look at what happened and say yes, you can try him again.

reply

[–] Skeletina 13 years ago

Not *any* judge. I am taking a course taught by a judge in Massachusetts who thinks this, along with many hollywood movies including court scenes, is BS. Generally it seems like same set of facts = same trial, not new separate one. It's been a little while since I've seen the film but regardless of weapons, if someone is found completely guilty of attempted murder and then uses their legal right to take the spouse they were found innocent of trying to kill (regardless of their actual guilt) off of life support it does not magically "transform" into murder.

I'm always open to debate though and if someone has an example of a case where something similar actually happened, I'd love to read it and won't be all obnoxious. Just my opinion here ;)

reply

[–] exatera 13 years ago

In my opinion if Hopkins got away with it, it would have been an absolutely terrible movie! He is too devious, I am not comfortable with the idea of a story ending this way.

reply

[–] pc-daisy 12 years ago

He didn't shoot her with his gun before the switch, he shot her with Nunnally's gun that he had switched at the hotel while they were in the pool. His own had been purchased about a month prior to the Nov 10th date and had never been fired.
Plus she wasn't suffering. The point was stressed to them all that she was not actually feeling anything and to quote Beechum at the end "the doctor said she could have outlived us all".

Also he wasn't acquitted at a full trial . He was discharged under a notice of acquittal because of insufficient evidence. The judge gave the prosecutors a chance to produce new evidence, but they couldn't. After he pulled the plug, so to speak, they had their new evidence. I understand that in Australia, there has to be new evidence for double jeopardy to not apply. Correction, anyone?

reply

[–] peterbaumhart29 11 years ago

This is basically right. It doesn't matter that she wasn't suffering in fact, Crawford was her legal guardian at that point and had full legal right to terminate life support. Additionally, Beachum's comment ("She probably would have outlived us all") ironically undercuts his own causation argument--since she would have lived absent pulling the plug, it is unlikely that any court would find the necessary causal link between the shooting and the death. Bivens, the California case cited elsewhere on this thread, doesn't control because that victim died as a result of his PVS and injuries sustained in the original attack rather than having his plug pulled. Thus the death in Bivens arose out of the same act as the original charges, whereas the wife's death in the movie arose out of an entirely different act (the pulling of the plug), which was itself legal at the time. Even with the new evidence, res judicata bars the prosecutor from retroactively challenging the legality of terminating life support. It was a clever attempted plot twist, since murder and attempted murder are not the same offense under the Blockburger test (and thus prosecution for the latter would not bar prosecution for the former as long as the victim wasn't dead at the time of the attempted murder trial), but ultimately it falls short because of the factual scenario.

reply

[–] alioth4 11 years ago

But could you not argue that after the wife's plug was pulled, the bullet that was put in her head (and was still there) is what actually killed her? That she died from that (or injury from that), (very shortly) after the plug was pulled, and not from the plug-pulling itself?

If the rightful guardian legally authorized "pulling the plug" due to coma/brain death from advanced disease or accidental trauma, that wouldn't be murder--the person would die of those natural, non-criminal causes shortly afterwards. But if you pull a plug due to coma/brain death resulting from an injury you inflicted with malice or criminal negligence, then when they die shortly after the life-support termination from that underlying injury, couldn't a case be made that those injuries inflicted by you directly caused their death, with the life-support only artificially/mechanically delaying that result?

What goes on the Coroner's report as "cause of death" (real question, not rhetorical) after life support is terminated and the patient dies? "Withdrawal of life support" (or some such phrase), or the underlying thing that made the patient not able to survive after withdrawal of life support? Or something like, "after life-support was terminated, John Doe died of [whatever it was that made them not able to live naturally without the life support]"?

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just asking if terminating life support, and not the "why" behind the life support, is considered the actual legal cause of death, where someone's culpability may or may not apply.

Depending on the answer to that, it could be that Ted Crawford would not be tried for "pulling the plug" at all--but for the injury he caused through malicious premeditated action, which she died from after pulling that plug.

"No more half-measures."

reply

[–] catje85 14 years ago

Question...
At the end of the film willy says to crawford... ya just had to pull the plug didn't you.
Doesn't the fact that he authorized her being pulled off of life support have something to do with it?
Because now she did sort of die due to his actions didn't she???

reply

[–] dasdfasfadsf 14 years ago

excuse me for my bad legal english but - double jeopardy or "ne bis in idem" law principle is not the point here. in european law, and I believe in anglo-saxon too, you have a certain deadline to appeal for whatever verdict or motion, and only after this dedaline or a certain time period of an appeal passes (- or the highest court ruling ) is a certain verdict final and binding. so, goslings, or whatever the f**his name is in this movie, saying that he doesn't have any new evidence is not him saying that he is rejecting his right to an appeal against this judges or hopkins' motion in I don't know- a few days? .. are you telling me that you can't file an appeal against that sort of motion in the US? let's say that that trial in the movie lasted a couple of weeks, maybe even one month, are you seriously telling me that in the US all the facts and evidence about someones murder can be found in only that period of couple of weeks with no latter possibility of some kind of an appeal or something? wtf..
btw I figured out that that semi-latino lover cop took the gun with him.. and that goslings pussy pal from DA's office is the same tough guy from training day.. talk about transformation lol

reply

[–] stephtoad 14 years ago

Actually, if you are tried for attempted murder because the victim is still alive, and then you are acquitted, and later the victim dies, you can be tried for murder. They are different charges. Double jeopardy will not apply in this case, so the ending is entirely factual.

reply

[–] Raksha_Keller 14 years ago

You must be failing your classes because it does not apply here.

You'll learn to hate me/But still call me baby/OhLove/So call me by my nameRpattz

reply

[–] hels-dunleavy 14 years ago

You know when Gosling says to him in his house: 'you just had to pull that plug didn't you... I just don't understand why you didn't let it go, doctor said that she probably would have outlived us all'? And earlier in the movie after the acquital Hopkins gave him that speech in the hospital 'I control the machine that goes from a cord down to a plug and an electrical outlet, and I decide when it gets pulled.

I personally interpret that the writer was trying to convey (in the lines Gosling says to him about murder at the end) that they wouldn't just make a case that once she is dead from the original wounds it's murder, but that the prosecution would make a case that he unduly and unreasonably exercised his spousal right to termination, which means that pulling the plug was the second murder attempt, in that case successful. The problem is the writing, which isn't strong enough to give enough information to the viewer something concrete about whether Hopkins interfered with her life support or not, or the legal parameters of intention.

Legally that's correct right? Take an example unconnected with attempted murder; if someone is in a car accident and end up like the wife in the film, if the spouse turns off life support and then evidence comes through showing that the spouse chose to do so in order to collect the life insurance and run off with a secret lover, that would become a crime because of intention despite having nothing to do with the original crime?

reply

[–] junktank 14 years ago

The point you are trying to make here is enormously irrelevant.

Anyways, take a step back and think about it in another way. Suppose that Hopkins didn't authorize the plug to be pulled, and instead the family of the victim (for instance, the father of the victim) authorized the plug-pulling since he had a legal right in this sort of case (hypothetically saying that the victim had previously created legally binding paperwork giving her father said right). I would posit that the DA would NOT be able to try Hopkins for murder here, and moreover that the circumstance given in the movie is essentially equivalent. Seems like people are just getting caught up with the fact that Hopkins "caused" the murder, but its a moot point.

DJ would (and should) apply because Hopkins can simply not be tried for murder. Let me be clear here - if the victim simply died as a result of these injuries (and not a legal right to euthanize), Hopkins can be tried and found guilty. HOWEVER, this is NOT the case, and Hopkins is only guilty of attempted murder and can thus only be charged with this. I don't see any judge allowing a murder charge in this scenario. Thus, if the movie had had the victim simply die without the interference of Hopkins, the ending would stand as correct. However, Hopkins' clever plug pulling should technically give him haven from ever being charged - whether it be with murder or attempted murder.

This being said, I'm sure its possible to cook up some other charge...remember that he was only being tried for attempted murder. DA could charge him with robbery, some stupid gun charge, etc.

reply

[–] hels-dunleavy 14 years ago

So you take my question (notice the question marks in their appropriate place at the end of the sentence, makes it a question) to the OP or any legal expert about what scenarios count as DJ (given that I'm a UK citizen and American law isn't exactly necessary for me to know) and you tell me my post is 'enormously irrelevant'? A qustion about double jeopardy. It's so cute you'd start that way, I'm bruised, really.

reply

[–] deniseactress 14 years ago

The double jeopardy does not apply here in this movie. The first set of circumstances involved an attempted murder and a living victim.

The same "victim" died. New circumstance = it's a new case. There is evidence a) bullet. It must be investigated where that bullet came from. b) How it got there? Is the new case. Husband had he not pulled the plug would have remained in the clear. But once a bullet is retrieved from a victim that's a new case altogether. Husband didn't help himself by confessing the circumstances to the prosecutor.

Zachary Quinto is ridiculously sexy! Robert Downey Jr....is pure sex!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] haggar 13 years ago

Cal. law is the only law applicable and it is dipositive of the issue. If the legal question involves a unique set of facts then law from another jurisidiction (1 of the other 49 states or Federal case law) may be citied as persusaive (supporting one side's argument) but is NOT dispositive on the issue. European law would never be citied for any reason, other than England's Common law which could be argued was a source for US common law.

This is by no means a unique set of facts and occurs fairly routinely. Defendant attempts to murder (not accidentally) the victim. The victim is injured, but does not immediately die. Later as a direct result of the injuries inflicted by the defendant (as opposed to an intervening causation ie-negligence of a doctor, suicide, etc.) the victim dies. The defendant can now be tried for murder, unless he was found not guilty of attempted murder based on the same facts, absent the victim's death.

+1

reply

[–] Skeletina 13 years ago

Yes, the first set of circumstances does involve an attempted murder and a living victim.

However, the technically GUILTY character played by Hopkins was cleared of that charge. I'm sure as the husband of the woman he was was found innocent of trying to murder, it was PERFECTLY within his legal rights to take her off of life support in the condition she was in. Taking one's spouse off of life support in the correct/legal manner is NOT murder and certainly not attempted murder.

Whatever evidence manifests later then could not be used to charge him with murder, since again legally taking one's spouse in that condition off of life support is not murder. The only charge left would have been attempted murder, but that had been over and done with, and then the DJ clause of the 5th amendment would be violated. Sad, really...

reply

[–] alioth4 11 years ago

As I argued above, this would all hinge on whether the termination of life support is the actual legal cause of death, or the injuries the victim's body could not survive once the life support is terminated. Because technically, their body dies a few seconds (or it can even be a few minutes or hours in some cases) after the plug is pulled, from that underlying injury (or disease, or whatever it is that caused the body to die without the life support which artificially delayed that result).

What does the Coroner put in his report as the cause of death in those cases? The termination of life support, or the underlying thing that actually kills them after life support is withdrawn?

Ted Crawford could be completely within his legal rights to terminate the life support--it could be that that's not an issue in a new trial at all in fact. But could he be found culpable for the injury that actually proved fatal after the life support was withdrawn--if that injury is the actual, technical and legal cause of death? This is a serious question, I don't claim to know the answer either way.

"No more half-measures."

reply

[–] gregmays 14 years ago

>>You can not be tried twice for the same "set of facts".
For example, if you killed somebody, and the prosecution goes for manslaughter, if you're acquitted, the prosecution can not retry you for Murder 2, even if they have new evidence. <<

Not true in the US. For instance, the mayor of Chicago, Cermak was shot in the 1933. Assailant was convicted of attempted murder. Cermak died a month later, and the guy was re-tried for murder. Two different crimes arising from a single incident.

reply