Well, in OJ’s criminal trial, he did not testify. So, even if he admitted it, he couldn’t be prosecuted for perjury on those grounds, correct? (I understand that he did testify in the civil trial and could face charges there. But let’s pretend that the civil trial didn’t happen for a moment). Or does the fact that he pleaded “not guilty” automatically constitute a statement of “I didn’t do it?”
Zev Steinhardt
After reading Enigma’s link, I realized taht the 5-yr sentence was a federal, not state sentence. That’s what I get for going from memory.
How is it that I didn’t see katie1341’s post until after I submitted? Oh well. . . I was living in Louisville at the time of the Ignatow case, and it was indeed a fascinating (and disturbing) case.
Also, I should note that I made a typo in my above post. Ignatow murdered Schaefer in 1988, not 1998. He was acquitted in 1991 but then later served 5 years for perjury after it was revealed that he had lied about not committing the crime. In December 2001 or January 2002, he was senteced to 9 years, again for perjury. This time it was in regard to the trial of Schaefer’s previous employer, William Spalding, who had threatened Ignatow. The jury found that Ignatow’s lies might have influeced the outcome of Spalding’s trial. Spalding had been found guilty and was fined $300.
So, prosecutors have found another way to get Ignatow in prison based on his original lie about not killing Schaefer. I can’t say I disapprove in this instance.
This is correct. “Not Guilty” != “Innocent.” AFAIK, the plea is in effect just saying “OK Mr. Prosecutor, meet your burden of proof.”
Perjury only applies to statements under oath – in open court, at a deposition, whatever. Statements of innocence in the press (or on Oprah, or whatever) aren’t subject to perjury charges.
(Of course, a statement on Oprah could be evidence in a perjury case – i.e., defendant says on the stand "I didn’t do it, then confesses on Oprah, and is then prosecuted for his perjury at the trial; the Oprah statement would be used as evidence of the untruth of the sworn statements in court).
Think of a “not guilty” plea as saying “prove it”. It isn’t a statement of innocence. Instead, it is a request that the prosecutors prove what they charged, as opposed to “guilty” meaning that the defendant will admit the charges are true.
The double jeopardy rules (with the dual sovereign and other caveats discussed) create a particularly perverse opportunity for gaming the system.
Frank kills Tom. At trial, Frank enters a not guilty plea. At trial, Frank doesn’t testify. He’s well on his way to being convicted of capital murder. At the last minute, his brother Joe appears in court and testifies that he was the real killer; Frank knew nothing about it (Joe gives some circumstantial details that seem to establish he was at the scene of the crime). Prosecution argues jury should disbelieve Joe and convict Frank. The jury acquits Frank. Prosecution moves for reconsideration, etc., and is denied it.
Joe is then indicted for murder. At his trial, he produces a video tape of him 3,000 miles away from the scene of the crime at the time of the murder, in the company of 12 bishops who confirm he was with them. He notes that he learned the details of the crime from Frank, who he knew all along was the murderer, and falsely confessed to save him. Joe can’t be convicted of murder. He is later charged with and convicted of perjury and serves a few years.
So no one is punished for the capital murder. Can they nail Frank on a lesser included offense? I’m not even sure they have Frank for perjury or obstruction of justice or any charges ancillary to Joe’s deception in his behalf, as there would be serious 5th Amendment problems with forcing Frank to refute Joe when it would incriminate Frank (this is akin to the principle that convicted criminals are not generally indicted for perjury for denying their crime, even if they do so under oath).
Thoughts? Isn’t this a pretty good scheme for criminals? It’s not purely theoretical, either, given that so many criminal cases, esp. murder, do seem to turn on murkier real-world multi-defendant situations in which it’s unclear who the “main” culprit is, and thus the “minor” co-culprits might be able to play the role of Joe and later recant.
Frank and Joe would be guilty of consipiracy, and that might be enough to get around the double jeapardy, as they took criminal actions to avoid prosecution. But, as IANAL I really don’t know.
This is where the Scottish system of a “not proven” verdict is very useful.
If the evidence does not maintain the charge, but it seems apparent that there is a string liklehood of wrongdoing, the jury cab return a verdict of not proven, and this allows for a further trail should stronger evidence be discovered.
well, in most cases where this happened, just as a WAG, i think they would probably be lying by saying they indeed committed the crime. sort of trying to spite the court system, even though the court system ruled correctly. sort of playing one of those “you can’t get me” games, only you really didn’t do it. sounds crazy but there are crazy people out there. probably is done all the time but no one cares because the defendants are not famous or the crime was not serious enough.
if some guy, who WAS guilty of murder of an opposing gang member, DID confess and brag, i think the U.S. or the State would just ignore him. too much trouble to go through the dance again and re-write the books when you could just say that he was lying for whatever reason (bragging rights, insanity, immaturity…) or there could be some street justice by the local police department.
You can be retried for something else. In central Wisconsin in the mid 80’s (I’m shaky on the dates and details) the Koontz family was murdered. Helen Koontz’ body was not found with the others. It had been disposed of elsewhere. It took some months to find.
A gang of teenagers was suspected, and at least one was brought to trial. He was a rich kid with a powerful family. He was found not guilty. But he later bragged about the details of the killing to his girlfriend who passed the details on to the police.
Since Helen Koontz was alive when she was taken from the farmhouse, he’d admitted to kidnapping. They tried him again and he was found guilty. I believe he’s still in prison.
First, Huerta88 said:
then Telemark said:
What if Frank had no idea that Joe was going to testify? Just because Joe knew some details of the crime doesn’t necessarily mean that he and Frank conspired to hijack the legal system. If they did conspire to obstruct justice, it would be difficult for prosecutors to prove, wouldn’t it?
It doesn’t even have to be the same crime for a prosecution to be barred by double jeopardy. If it’s in the same jurisdiction and arose out of the same set of circumstances, they may not be able to prosecute you. There was a case in GA a few years ago where someone pled guilty to a relatively minor traffic offense, and there had been an accident involved. The driver of the other car suffered some injuries, and died shortly after the defendant entered his plea (the victim was expected to recover but took a turn for the worse). The State prosecuted him for vehicular homicide, and got a conviction, which was overturned on double jeopardy grounds, because the case had already been “fully litigated” with the defendant’s entry of a guilty plea to the traffic violation.
If they arrest you for more than one thing that arises out of the same facts and circumstances , they have to prosecute you for everything. For example, you get arrested for shoplifting and when they book you in they find a gram of cocaine on you. If you go to court and plead to the shoplifting (or get tried and convicted or acquitted of it), and for whatever reason, the cocaine charge isn't prosecuted, the State will be barred from ever prosecuting you on the cocaine.This thread reminds me of a movie:
No.
No, no, no.
And, also, no.
The above hypothetical is absolutely wrong. There is no particular requirement for the state to prosecute two unrelated crimes. The mere fact that cocaine was found during an arrest for shoplifting does not tie the two together as inextricably as katie1341 would have you believe.
Now, there are variations in the story which might make it true. If the substance found was also shoplifted - perhaps codeine from a pharmacy - it’s true the state might have some estoppel problems after an unsuccessful first prosecution for the clothes stolen, and might even have some problems after a successful conviction if the codeine and the clothes were taken as part of the same criminal transaction.
But there is no reason that, if a clothes shoplifter is searched incident to arrest and an unrelated illicit substance is discovered, the prosecution cannot elect to prosecute the clothes theft and leave the drug charge alone, and then later prosecute the drug charge. (Assuming, of course, that we’re not talking about waiting so long that we’d run into a statute of limitations or speedy trial problem.)
Where did you ever get the idea otherwise, katie1341?
Bricker, perhaps that was a bad factual example anda little oversimplified (and perhaps this would be a good place for me to say “this is not legal advice”). But procedural double jeopardy (at least in GA) requires that if more than one crime arising from the same conduct, known to the proper prosecuting officer, and under the juridiction of the same court, then they have to be prosecuted “in a single prosecution” (OCGA §16-1-7).
So I guess the questoin would be whether having cocaine in your pocket (and thereby illegally possessing it) at the same time that you commit a shoplifting amounts to "the same conduct". Being the scumbag criminal defense lawyer that I am, I would certainly argue (and, I think, make a good case) that it IS the "same conduct" and would have to be prosecuted at the same time.
A better factual example might be someone who gets into a fight and beats up several people in a bar or something. They would have to prosecute him for all of them, as the arise out of the same conduct. Of course, there may be strategic reasons for the defense to sever these.
I fear that I've totally hijacked this thread- sorry.I know what katie’s talking about. What she’s describing is the “Carving” doctrine, which was in place in Texas until 1982. Under that law, crimes arising out of the “same transaction” were barred from subsequent prosecution. This was the law before the current “distinguishable elements” test described above was adopted. It seems that’s still the test in GA.
You believe that shoplifting and possession constitute the same conduct? Coincidence is not conduct, and any assertion to the contrary is the biggest fallacy since post hoc propter hoc. The crimes have nothing in common aside from the defendant and the time.
No, I’ll take that back – they don’t even have time in common. Unless she shoplifted the cocaine itself, the possession took place long before the shoplifting.
Even under the same transaction test, I find it absolutely impossible to envision a successful argument that merely finding cocaine during a search incident to arrest for shoplifting would be sufficient nexus to make the two part of the same transaction.
I’ll certainly admit I’m no expert on Georgia law. But OCGA § 1-6-7 provides:
It’s absolutely unclear to me how the possession of cocaine arises from the same conduct as shoplifting clothes.
An admittedly cursory look at Lexis doesn’t reveal a single Georgia case that’s on point with these facts. If you have one, by all means toss it out… but while I certainly agree with your bar fight hypo, I am still firmly unconvinced of your cocaint hypo.
AFAIK, both katie1341 and Bricker’s scenerios are irrelevant to the discussion, as double jeopardy only applies to CAPITAL offenses.
Shoplifting and possession of cocaine are not capital crimes, murder and murder conspiracy are.
As a slight hijack, I’d like to point out that the interpretation of double jeopardy in the movie Double Jeopardy is totally wrong. If a person is conviced of murder and the victim is later found to be alive, the convicted murderer could not kill that person and be immune from prosecution. This is a seperate criminal action. Presumably the first conviction would get thrown out or reduced to a lesser offense, depending on the circumstances.
Bricker, if we all agreed about this stuff, we wouldn’t need lawyers. As I said, it’s not a great example, and if I actually argued it in court I might very well lose. But I’d still feel that it was worth filing the motion and arguing.