Crime/legal puzzle

In My Humble Opinion
1

(Not sure whether this is best in IMHO, CS or MPSIMS, so here.)

I freely admit this comes from reading too many short-crime-stories-with-a-twist, but I’d appreciate a reasonably serious and grounded discussion.
So Mr. B disappears. No body is found, but copious evidence points to Mr. A having done away with him. A is convicted of the murder and sent to prison.

Mr. A gets out after 25 years, and one day there’s a knock on the door - it’s Mr. B, who is laughing because he not only slipped away to a new life and identity, but managed to set up his old rival in the process.

In a fit of rage, A kills B.
So… what crime is A guilty of? What approach would a reasonable DA take to the case? (Conviction, but with time served?)

(Of course, the real solution would be for A to bury B in the basement and forget about it, but it’s possible someone might come looking for Mr. B-prime.)

And… didn’t something like this happen in reasonably recent history? Maybe LA gang related?

2

More like a 1999 movie, actually. But double jeopardy wouldn’t apply. You can’t be convicted for the same crime twice, but it wouldn’t be the same crime. You’re talking about a different murder under different circumstances.

3

Murder, as double jeopardy doesn’t apply here.

4

Probably voluntary manslaughter, specifically, since I think it would be considered a crime of passion.

5

Well, if A had a real good lawyer, he might try for “corpse abuse”, arguing B was already dead.

:smiley:

6

As people have already pointed out - this is only a problem to people who don’t understand the law.

The law doesn’t have to be “fair” - ok well it does - I mean you get a fair trial, but it doesn’t have to be complete - like physics or something.

You killed someone

The fact that that person was presumed dead is of no consequence.

You can’t go find people that were presumed dead after seven years of being missing and kill them either.

The fact that you were convicted of killing that person - doesn’t make it a retroactive pass to do whatever.

Nor can you rob a store that you were innocently sent to jail for after you get out.

The correct course of action is to file a civil suit against the person and there probably is some crime committed as well.

7

This issue came up once on Law and Order, IIRC, but I couldn’t find the episode.

Getting back to Mr. A: of course he’s guilty of murder, but I suspect that with a good lawyer and the right jury, he’d be found guilty of a much lesser charge. A DA might be inclined to let him plea to a lesser charge rather than risk an embarrassing trial, especially if he was the one who tried him originally for murdering Mr. B.

And yes, Mr. A should have sued Mr. B.

8

This was part of the plot of the first episode of Crazy Like a Fox.

I would say “voluntary manslaughter” - it’s not the same crime as the one for which Mr. A was convicted; among other things, it happened at a different time. Of course, Mr. A has a case for wrongful imprisonment.