I was going to mention this. The two rednecks that killed him sold their story to Look magazine for a couple thousand dollars (in 1956 money). They fully admitted their guilt and even gave a detailed and graphic description of the events. Apparently this became one of the reasons crimes like this can now also be prosecuted at the federal level for violation of civil rights (and avoiding double jeopardy).
Till’s murderers did not testify in their own defense, so they couldn’t be prosecuted for perjury. There were charged with kidnapping Till after the Look piece but the grand jury (shockingly, all white) declined to indict.
Isn’t there some principle in US law (IIRC there is in Canadian law) about a right to a speedy trial? I.e. the government can’t store information about people on its enemies list and then decide to prosecute them 5 or 10 years later when they begin to make trouble for the government. If the government has all the facts, it cannot wait a long time to take it to trial?
Most “charged with murder 20 years later” cases hinge on additional evidence that comes to light resulting in charges being laid.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But my layman’s understanding is the right to a speedy trial kicks in only once charges have been formally filed.
Interestingly, Thailand has a statute of limitations on murder. I believe it’s 20 years. Always found that odd.
The statute of limitations, where it exists, is reasonable. Try finding witnesses, defense exhibits, etc. 20 years after the fact. Who’s going to testify “Yes, he was in my bar all night” after 25 years? Have the credit card receipts? Witnesses may be mistaken, have ages to concoct stories, grow grudges, etc. I suspect the law was put in place before modern forensic methods, widespread crime scene photography, blood typing and DNA, and other procedures. 75 years ago age would not be kind to any attempt to prosecute or defend a case, all evidence would be suspect.
(There’s a case today in Canada, Candace Derksen was murdered 30 years ago. The case is mentioned in one of Malcolm Gladwell’s books. Her murderer was charged a few years ago based on mainly some DNA on hair found on the rope used to tie her up. The Supreme Court here ordered a new trial based on another similar case that may or may not have happened when the defendant was in jail. But I’d be really worried about convicting someone based on a few hairs that happen to be found and matched and nothing else. It stinks too much of convenient planting. After 30 years, who knows?)
The same applies to “speedy trial”. If a charge is laid much later, based only on evidence available long before, I would say that it deprives the defendant of due process if it makes his defence that much more difficult. The prosecution can investigate and store what information it wants using the full apparatus of the state, while the defendant may not know to begin assembling a defence until well after the event.
Here’s an example of the problem with charging someone decades later. Plus, the shed where her body was found was apparently unlocked and possibly used by local teenagers as a hangout.
Sam has it right: the federal constitutional right to a speedy trial does not attach until a formal charging instrument has been filed. Interestingly, the Sixth Amendment is rather vague on what “speedy” means and SCOTUS has specifically declined to attach a bright line deadline to the right. They have basically established a “totality of the circumstances” test which looks at:
Most state constitutions are more specific. In Florida, the constitution requires that the accused be brought to trial within 90 days on misdemeanor charges or 175 days on felonies, unless the right is waived.
Well, you’ll want some stronger evidence before you file the second set of charges, because otherwise the defense has it pretty easy.
“Yer honor, the evidence suggests that all these murders were committed by the same person, and a jury already ruled it wasn’t my client.”
The prosecutor needs to be able to come back with “But that jury only ruled that way because he’d threatened their families. Whether he was actually guilty is still in question, and questions of fact are what juries are for.”
Nope, it is the right to refuse to answer. Hence the phrase Hollywood uses when folks invoke the Fifth Amendment: “I refuse to answer on the grounds that any answer I might give would tend to incriminate me.”
This was also why Bill Clinton didn’t commit perjury when he denied an affair with Monica Lewinski when compelled to testify to Congress. The Fifth Amendment gives everyone an option ovoid incriminating themselves, either by admitting to a crime or committing the crime of perjury. Since the President, when so compelled by Congress, cannot refuse to answer, … giving an intentionally false answer cannot be a crime. Even the President must have a way to avoid self-incrimination.
Just want to point out he’s not 100% “free” to admit his crime.
For instance, he can still be sued for “wrongful death” by the family of his victim, and that case becomes a slam-dunk if he has admitted to being the cause of death.
Also, prosecutors are pretty crafty at finding ways to charge you with something when they know you got away with murder. For instance, did you deprive your victim of his Civil Rights (by killing him)? That’s a Federal Crime.
Lastly, the Supreme Court has ruled that Conspiracy to Commit (insert crime name) is not the same act as committing that crime for purposes of Double Jeopardy. So you could (will) be on trial again for essentially the same thing if they can find somebody to testify that you suggested to them that “we” oughtta kill that guy.
That doesn’t usually work.
If you stand trial for assault, and your victim later dies of his injuries, … the judge is going to tell the prosecutor that he could have waited to see if they’d die before trying you, and he chose not to. You have already been tried for that act.
First, do you have a cite for any of this? Second, Clinton avoided committing perjury in his testimony to Congress by not testifying before Congress. Clinton’s denial was made in a deposition in the Paula Jones civil suit. The only fact witness testimony in the impeachment trial came from Vernon Jordan, Lewinsky and Sidney Blumenthal, who all testified by deposition.
Well, first things first: as I noted above, the Supreme Court says “Conspiracy” is not the same crime for jeopardy, so the case isn’t killed right there.
I am not aware of any reason their testimony would not be admissible in the new trial.
BUT, if you are talking about just entering their previous testimony into the record, as opposed to having them come in and testify again, that probably won’t work. The Defendant has a right to “confront his accusers”, and that includes cross-examining them on their testimony. New trial=new chance to cross examine. There are exceptions, like if the witness is not available anymore, but as far as I know only if they can show that the witness is unavailable because the defendant made them so, like by having them killed. IF they died of natural causes, that’s just tough luck for the prosecutors.
You have spotted the wrong issue. I’m asking if the second trial is permissible under double jeopardy and collateral estoppel principles. I don’t think there’s any question that, assuming the trial itself is permissible, the witnesses can testify again about what they saw.
If the witnesses are unavailable, though, I disagree that it’s tough luck for the prosecutors. The testimony from the previous trial can be read into the next one. Of course, it’s hearsay, but admissible under a well-known exception to the hearsay rules.
Actually, as I pointed out, I had already addressed the issue you intended to raise: The US Supreme Court says conspiracy is a different crime for jeopardy purposes.
So yes, if he was acquitted for “Conspiracy to” whatever, he could then be retried for the crime he was originally accused of conspiring to commit. And vice-versa: OJ was acquitted of killing Nichole, but if the state can come up with evidence he conspired with somebody, he could be tried for that criminal conspiracy.
Does the defendant have to be aware of the bribery to invalidate the trial in this manner? What happens if somebody else bribes the judge and jury to acquit but the defendant is under the belief he’s facing a legitimate trial?
Wrong.
It’s possible he could be retried, but not certain.
The limiting factor is not the same-crime aspect. There’s nothing magical about conspiracy, by the way; any two crimes are different for double-jeopardy purposes if each contains an element that the other does not.
The limiting factor is the collateral estoppel issue. You’re confusing issue preclusion with claim preclusion.