MovieChat Forums > Fracture (2007) Discussion > Double-jeopardy DOES apply

Double-jeopardy DOES apply

posted 15 years ago by Reachthesilence
92 replies | jump to latest

Hi guys,
I am studying Law (in Europe though, but double jeopardy works the same).

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.

The result actually doesn't matter. The fact that the wife ended up dead or not doesn't change the facts.

Therefore, you can not retry him for the same crime, even if you have new evidence. That is as simple as that.

And even if you'd admit there's no double jeopardy, there is still no murder, as she didn't die because of him shooting the gun. The whole story around the guns and all can not be tried again, even with new evidence!

His behavior was an attempted murder, that's it.

[–] Van-Fro 14 years ago

I'd say double jeopardy does not apply. First, there are elements that have to be proven in attempted murder (specifically, you must prove that the person intended to kill the victim). A first degree murder case can be proven without proving intent. In California, you don't have to prove premeditated if you prove implied malice. Second, there are numerous cases when a person has died after a prolonged coma and the person has been charged again. This is not that unusual. The problem in this one is the estoppel element, which would prevent them from charging him if the elements are the same. But, I don't think they are.

[–] deniseactress 14 years ago

On a side note, don't you think that before this script made it to screen there was research involved to make certain that the "ending" of the film was not going to be dismissed as inaccurate.

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

[–] Arseweb 9 years ago

Yeah and they even go to the trouble of showing us what that research revealed.

The way I see it, even if there is a difference between the legal technicalities described in the denouement and what would happen in real life, it doesn't detract from the film in any way.

We're clearly told how things are expected to work in the world of the film, and shown that there's a precedent for Willy's interpretation. And the fact that the cops have gotten involved shows that Willy's not gone out on a complete limb. At most it leaves room for us to wonder if Willy's being a bit overconfident about how things are going to play out in the second trial, but it's not uncommon for a film to finish with someone getting arrested for a crime, without you actually knowing for sure that how the trial's going to work out. Sometimes you're left with more doubt as to whether

Sometimes a story gets to the ultimate consequence of the events it shows, sometimes it doesn't. That's just story-telling for you. As is the fact that the way the world works in otherwise-realistic stories often deviates a bit from how it works in real life. Sometimes you have to simplify things in order for the narrative to be clear enough, especially when it comes to the law. So why would anyone get het up about this?

[–] TheSummer2012 13 years ago

A few things:

1. Double jeopardy under Californian law is the same as under US federal law.

"The protection against double jeopardy in the California Constitution is the same as that in the federal Constitution." (In re Saul S. (1985) 167 Cal. App. 3d 1061, 1064 [213 Cal.Rptr. 541].)

2. What Willy was referring to at the end of the film was the decision stated in People v Bivens which itself cited the decision in Grady v Corbin - in both cases the victim died subsequently and the question was whether the defendants could be tried again:

"[a]n exception [to the Double Jeopardy rule] may exist where the State is unable to proceed on the more serious charge at the outset because the additional facts necessary to sustain that charge have not occurred or have not been discovered despite the exercise of due diligence."

3. The issue here is, as some other posters have pointed out, that in the above cases the victim died subsequently as a direct result of the criminal act. The question is therefore whether switching off life support somehow breaks the chain of causation. It's a complex matter but, legally speaking, switching off someone's life support is not akin to ending someone's life. It's withdrawing treatment and "letting nature take its course". It can therefore be argued that the victim did die as a result of the gun shot wound, not as a result of Ted's permission to switch off life support. The film's ending is therefore accurate.

4. On a side note, it would be possible, of course, simply to appeal the acquittal.

[–] alioth4 11 years ago

It's a complex matter but, legally speaking, switching off someone's life support is not akin to ending someone's life. It's withdrawing treatment and "letting nature take its course". It can therefore be argued that the victim did die as a result of the gun shot wound, not as a result of Ted's permission to switch off life support. The film's ending is therefore accurate.

Yeah, this goes to my thinking above.

"No more half-measures."

[–] diana_shields_alaska 14 years ago

Looks like we all watched "Fracture" last night (wee hours of the morning for me).

Reading through all the post that replied here I tend to sum up that not everyone REALLY paid attention to what was said when the charge of murder was brought forth at the end. This charge had nothing to do with the original shooting of the wife - it was that fact that he had the plugged pulled on her and "the doctors said that she would die naturally in her own time". These murder charges do not stem from the original case and thus Double Jeopardy is not a concern.

Just thought I should put my two cents worth in here -- I was up until 2 a.m. watching glued to the television set (had to get up at 6:30 a.m. for work).

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]