People forget that Jane Doe is legally dead. If her body is found, it would just be the body of the woman ‘murdered’ 5 years ago showing up.
Ignoring the children, it’s perfectly legal for an adult to travel. You could get into tax trouble if you don’t pay taxes, but other than that there’s nothing against an adult pulling up from one area and moving to another without notifying anyone. If she deliberately framed Reiser for murder then she could be in trouble for that, but it would be very hard to prove, and Russia probably wouldn’t extradite for it.
If she took kids without the other parent’s consent, that’s some flavor of kidnapping or custodial interference, which is criminal, and you’d then have an international custody dispute on your hands, which would be messy but not really a big deal.
Does anyone have the answer to Guin’s question? I would think time served while innocent, would have to count toward the time sentenced for a crime in which you really are guilty.
I can’t see how one would have anything to do with the other legally especially if there was a mandatory minimum. Again, it’s not a zero sum game. A judge with some latitude in sentencing could take it into account, like they could take anything else into account, but that’s about it.
Do you really think that some guy who is freed because of the Innocence Project gets a couple of free robberies?
They’re two separate events, time for one crime doesn’t count towards time for another crime. A defense attorney can argue for a lighter sentence, but he will have to serve whatever the statutory minimum is regardless of the judge’s feelings, and it’s certainly possible for the judge to sentence him without regard for any time served. The general remedy for false imprisonment is to sue the state for compensation, that’s still going to be open for him.
Honestly, I can’t see why I would want to give him any less time for the time served. It clearly wasn’t punishment for his current crime, clearly didn’t deter him, and it’s not in dispute that he murdered someone. I would be inclined to give an unrepentant criminal who keeps repeating crimes a higher sentence, not a lower one.
I’m not sure how to post the link with the device I’m using, but the master has spoken on this. Just do a keyword search for “jeopardy” on the SD main page and click on “What happens if you confess to a crime after being found not guilty.”
He is correct. The Plot for that movie is based upon a legal fallacy.
Well, there is one point about this. If you murdered someone already believed to be dead, and disposed of the body, the cops would really have a hard time proving murder this time! I mean, they already convicted you of murder once without finding a body, sure, but now they’d be trying to tell the jury “so we were wrong the first time, but now the victim is really dead. We swear!”
i did answer. It is irrelevant. The person was ‘killed’ 5 years ago. When they are found dead it is just their body from 5 years earlier showing up. You would never be charged again.
No- as was said many times here, that person wasnt dead.
Even if the Coroners office messes up and reports someone as legally dead- due to a mistake, or the wrong person, or a long missing person presumed dead- when they show back up, they are alive and if you kill them, it’s murder.
I didn’t think it would, but I just wondered if some defense attourney would try it. (But my legal knowledge mainly comes from watching Law & Order, not exactly a reliable source)
Oh, no doubt his Lawyer would use that in a attempt to get a lower sentence. It might even work a little.
No - as was said in the OP, the person is missing. Nobody knows where they are. They are never seen alive again. They have disappeared. There is no mistake. The person is literally missing.
So when their obdy is found ,THEY WILL THINK ITS THE BODY FROM 5 YEARS EARLIER
surprised nobody has mentioned the movie Gone Girl yet. The wife tried to frame her husband for murder and left town. She later killed another guy and came back to her husband.
I suspect that a newly killed body and a body that has been dead for five years will look substantially different enough from each other to raise doubts it is simply the body from five years ago just being discovered.
Even if they looked exactly the same, that only means you can introduce reasonable doubt about the second murder – perhaps enough to not be convicted of it, perhaps enough to not even have any more investigation. But that is a far cry from “we know you killed your victim after you were released, but can’t do anything about it due to double jeopardy”.
They’d be telling the jury something more like “The defendant attempted to kill the victim X years ago and she tried to fake her death to escape him, but now he caught up with her and did kill her” or “The defendant has been trying to kill this victim for years, the old police screwed up but now we’ve got him dead to rights, are you going to let him free to kill again?” The defense lawyer can try to paint the picture you’re thinking of, but I suspect it would not work as well as you think, since the prosecutor can pretty easily turn the situation around into a pattern of bad behavior from the defendant.
This is interesting. Thanks for the replies.