Suppose that a robber is convicted of a single count of armed robbery and sentenced to ten years in prison, but then, while he is in prison, the investigators discover that he had actually committed a string of robberies and they had only nailed him for one of those.
Do they wait for him to finish his sentence and emerge from prison, and then slap additional charges on him to send him back behind bars (assuming statute of limitations hasn’t kicked in yet), or do they usually just shrug and say, “Well, we nailed him for one so we nailed him for them all” and move on?
If There is no statute of limitations problem, the prosecutor would have all three options What they decide to do would turn on the severity of the crimes and whether they thought the original sentence was sufficient
Would they really wait for the criminal to get out of prison before prosecuting him or her for additional crimes?
I would think if they wanted to prosecute for the additional crimes, they’d do it as soon as possible (to avoid things like inaccurate memories by witnesses, lost evidence, etc.) and then just try to get the sentences served non-concurrently on conviction.
But that’s just from watching a lot of television.
In Canada you have a constitutional right to a speedy trial - if you are not done in 30 months for major crimes, 24 months for minor crimes (I think) they have to drop the charges. I assume that starts from the point they have enough evidence to charge. The prosecution would probably have to explain very seriously why they failed to charge with no significant new evidence during the wait.
Generally if the prosecution wants to pursue a crime, they go ahead and pursue it. Witnesses and evidence tend to disappear over time if not investigated, and doing investigations but not following it up with prosecution makes it look like they’re investigating the wrong thing. If they want to keep the person in prison, waiting until they get out to charge them with a new crime is counterproductive, as trials take months to years to resolve and the person will likely be able to get out on bail. And waiting for dramatic timing may get the prosecutor on a judge’s bad side. So there’s no benefit to waiting and lots of benefit to prosecuting immediately.
You seem have the idea that if someone is in prison they can’t be charged with a crime until they get out, but this isn’t the case - it’s not uncommon to have a defendant who’s in prison or jail for another crime.
Plus, deferring the prosecution to minimise the possiblity of sentences being served concurrently would appear to be an abusive practice. There’ll be rules in the jurisidction concerned about when it’s appropriate for sentences to be served concurrently and when it’s not; deferring the prosecution so as to deny the defendant the benefit of concurrency that the rules would allow him looks like a clear attempt to frustrate the operation of the rules.
One situation where I believe it is common is when a criminal commits crimes in different states. If you’ve been convicted in one state and are serving a sentence, another state which plans on charging you with a crime will generally wait until the first state releases you. They’ll file a warrant and you’ll be released directly from the custody of the first state to the second one.
This. I’m sure I’ve seen cases where a person is sent to prison for one crime and then while serving that sentence is charged, tried, and convicted of some other crime.
I’m wondering how multiple robberies could be part of the same transaction - I mean , double jeopardy doesn’t prevent multiple counts of murder or assault when there are multiple victims, so I’m not sure why multiple counts of robbery would be prohibited.
Unless you're talking about the person going to prison for a robbery that consisted of forcibly stealing a wallet from someone and later being prosecuted for stealing a watch in the same incident from the same victim. But that doesn't fit the facts in the OP
I believe a person committing a string of thefts can be charged with a specific grade of felony due to the combined value of the items he stole, even if each individual theft would be a lesser grade crime. Similarly, if you are caught dealing drugs, they can combine the size of the transactions they have observed to increase the grade of felony.
However, it’s clear double jeopardy wouldn’t apply if he was never charged for the string of robberies in the first place. I’m sure they would prosecute right away and seek to extend his prison sentence.
In reality, a ‘string of robberies’ is almost always known at the time the person is arrested (or even before). Police know from the method of operation, descriptions from the victime, video footage, etc. In fact, it’s often the recognition of the series of crimes that leads the police to concentrate on catching this criminal.
Then, as doreen says, that series of crimes is used either to elevate the severity of the charges he is prosecuted under, or after conviction, to ask the Judge for an increased sentence taking the whole series incto consideration.
There’s a reason it’s a standard defense tactic to not only waive the right to speedy trial, but to try to delay it as long as possible (assuming that the defendant is either out on bail, or doing at least some time is a foregone conclusion so might as well get credit for time served before the trial.) Defense cases get better with age. Witnesses die or disappear. The “off with their head” mentality of the public (that forms a jury pool and elects the prosecutors) dies down. The prosecution might be less enthusiastic about a years old case, willing to cut a deal, or it may even be a new prosecutor that wasn’t involved in the original proceedings. If the prosecution wants to bring additional charges there’s no motivation for waiting until the defendant is about to be released even if there isn’t a statute of limitations issue.