Actually at least one case has already been pointed out earlier in the thread where exactly the same criminal incident was tried two separate times for different crimes which proves my point. Scroll back and you'd find it. That should be sufficient enough.
Also why do I need to point to ANY case other than the People vs. Bivens case that they actually use in the movie which states exactly what i'm telling you? It's an actual case and it does clearly state that the same evidence can be used to try a second charge if facts have not occurred or have not been discovered despite due diligence.
Here's the part of that case you need to concentrate on:
The court in Grady recognized an exception to the above principles: "We recognized in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169 , and n. 7 [53 L.Ed.2d 187, 97 S.Ct. 2221 (1977), that when application of our traditional double jeopardy analysis would bar a subsequent prosecution, '[a]n exception 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. See Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 448 -449 [56 L.Ed. 500, 32 S.Ct. 250] (1912); Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 453 , n. 7 [25 L.Ed.2d 469, 90 S.Ct. 1189] (1970)] (Brennan, J., concurring.)' " (Grady v. Corbin, supra, 495 U.S. at p. 516 [109 L.Ed.2d at p. 561, fn. 7].) This exception did not apply in Grady because the assistant district attorney was informed of the victim's death on the night of the accident. (Ibid.)
Another excerpt from the same case states the following very clearly:
The court in In re Saul S., supra, 167 Cal. App. 3d 1061 acknowledged that the California cases which recognize the above exception to the general rule of double jeopardy involve misdemeanor convictions followed by prosecutions for homicide after the death of the victim. However, even though the case before it involved an attempted murder adjudication followed by a petition charging murder of the same victim, "this is a distinction without a difference because the rationale employed by these courts in recognizing the exception is the same." (Id., at pp. 1066-1067.)
[5] The rationale or public policy principle articulated in In re Saul S. is that even though the rule against multiple prosecutions is a procedural safeguard designed to prevent harassment, there is no harassment or fundamental unfairness when the defendant is prosecuted for the death of the victim which had not occurred at the time of the misdemeanor prosecution. (167 Cal. App. 3d 1067.)
Now this ruling applies DIRECTLY to the case in the movie (most likely why they used it) since she wasn't dead at the time of trial and later died as a result of a gunshot wound to the head, the facts of the case have now changed meaning double jeopardy on attempted murder do not apply to a subsequent murder charge and the evidence can be tried again.
That enough case history for you? Or would you like me to pull up excerpts from all of those mentioned already in this thread and in the People vs Bivens case plus others that prove my point? Please, stop before you embarrass yourself further.
reply
share
L0GAN5
12 years ago
That is clearly not a precedent for what happens here, because Bivens was not acquitted of the lesser crime. The Bivens case allows for testing further evidence that is not independent of an offence the defendent has been convicted of i.e. it would allow for Crawford to be tried for murder following his conviction for attempted murder, since you are trying new evidence i.e you are prosecuting that his wife died of a gun shot wound that he has aleady been convicted of inflicting; in such a scenario you do not have to retry the evidence that he inflicted the gunshot wound. In the film's scenario it would be impossible to prosecute him, because even though you can prove his wife died of the gunshot wound, he as already been acquitted of inflicting it. The Bivens case allows to try fresh evidence that has not already been tried, it categorically does not allow you try the same evidence again. As I have pointed out, if this were the case you would get prosecutors holding back certain pieces of evidence and certain charges so they can have a second shot should they fail.
reply
share