Obviously based on the Polanski situation but not specifically about that case.
If there’s a case where there’s a long delay between the time of the crime and the time of the court case, is the case conducted under current law or under the law that existed at the time of the crime? For example will Polanski be sentenced under 1977 sentencing guidelines or under 2009 sentencing guidelines?
The substantive law as it existed at the time of the act. As for sentencing, well guidelines are NOT law.It will depend of juridiction. As I recall, having detaied guidelines is something that has come up in the last 20 or so years in most places so if I was to hazard a guess, the new ones.
Generally the defendant is tried under the substantive law that existed at the time of the crime. There was a recently solved murder locally a few years ago that had occurred in the 1970’s; the local DA’s had to dig up the old code books to prosecute the defendant. I joked with them that they should also wear sideburns and suits with wide lapels and flared pants, like NFL “throwback” uniforms.
I was just wondering about some hypothetical criminal who had been convicted of two previous crimes and then committed a third one but didn’t get caught at the time. Ten years later, the state passes a “third strike” law. Ten years after that, evidence is found that leads to the criminal’s arrest and conviction. Could he be given an extended sentence based on a law that hadn’t existed at the time he committed the crime?
Now suppose it went the opposite way. The criminal committed the crime when the third strike law was in effect. But the law is revoked between the time he committed the crime and the time he was arrested and convicted. Can the court argue that, based on the same principle as I outlined above, he should be given an extended sentence because that was the law at the time he broke it?
You are tried by the substantive law as it existed at the time of the crime.
Speaking of Polanski - since he pled guilty and was convicted prior to fleeing the country, what prevented the court from sentencing him in abstentia? Does the defendent have to appear at sentencing?
If new evidence appeared that somebody had smoked marijuana in New York back in 1976 (let’s say somebody published their memoirs) could they theoretically be arrested in 2009 under the terms of the relatively draconian Rockefeller drug laws that existed from 1973 to 1979? (Possession of four ounces carried a minimum 15 year sentence.)
The DA is way too busy to worry about someone smoking pot 30 years ago.
And they obviously wouldn’t give a shit if they had all of the time in the world. Little Nemo does pose an interesting hypothetical though.
In New York, Murder and Class A felonies do not have a statute of limitations, but for most felonies, the SoL is 5 years, for most misdemeanors, 2 years. After this time has passed without any attempt to prosecute, the state cannot begin proceedings.
Class A felonies are a very narrow set of crimes. (for example, aggravated Assault on a police officer is a Class B felony, so is Manslaughter in the First Degree.).
I believe some drug crimes were made Class A felonies under the Rockefeller laws.
I don’t know of any time when simple possession or use of a small quantity of marijuana, as described in the hypo, was a Class A.
BTW, I’ve always found it quaint that the New York Penal Law spells it “marihuana.”
I unfortunately couldn’t find a specific cite of the text of the law itself. But this site seems to be referring to Class A drug crimes.
I’m not arguing that Class A drug crimes didn’t exist. Only that simple possession/use of marijuana never was one. Simple possession (under 7/8 oz) was decriminalized in 1977. I have a hard time believing it went from being a class A felony to being a violation in 4 years.
http://www.prdi.org/rocklawfact.html