# Killer Confesses Afer "not guilty" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 9, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903 "2006-04-09T00:39:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/41 "2006-04-10T19:55:19Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > He was later convicted on a civil rights violation for the shooting deaths of two black men, but I don’t know the particulars of that case. The case is _United States v. Franklin_, 704 F.2d 1183; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28908 (10th Cir. 1983). He was convicted of “violating 18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2)(B) (1976) by shooting and killing two black men who had been using a public facility.” Much of the appeal focused on the admissibility of evidence of racial motivation. Franklin claimed it wasn’t relevant because he denied neither that the crime was racially motivated nor that he was a racist–he denied committing it. He also claimed that: > [@](#): > > the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. In particular, Franklin suggests the Government failed to establish that Fields and Martin were killed because they were or had been enjoying a public facility. The Court concluded: > [@](#): > > We disagree. Several witnesses testified that Franklin had disapproved of the racial mixing at Liberty Park. Hawley and Herrera both testified that he told them he shot two black joggers “to do something about it.” The jury could well have inferred that he intended to deprive the victims of the opportunity to enjoy public facilities. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/42 "2006-04-10T20:04:09Z")
While we’re having this discussion, it’s probably worth noting that their are occasions when a defendant has been acquited in a criminal trial but later found guilty of wrongful death in a civil trial. This has happened in high profile cases like those against O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/43 "2006-04-10T20:49:50Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > While we’re having this discussion, it’s probably worth noting that their are occasions when a defendant has been acquited in a criminal trial but later found guilty of wrongful death in a civil trial. This has happened in high profile cases like those against O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake. Civil cases don’t result in an adjudication of guilt, so it’s not quite right to say they were found guilty. But you are right; in both cases, the defendants were found to be a proximate cause of their victims’ deaths. As a result, they were liable for damages. ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/44 "2006-04-11T03:00:10Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > That’s also the guy who shot Larry Flynt, I think. > > The police officers in the Rodney King case were tried under [18 USC § 242](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html), Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. That particular statute does require a state actor. Franklin, on the other hand, was tried under the general criminal civil rights statute, [18 U.S.C. § 245](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000245----000-.html), Federally Protected Activities. Ok, so there are times when you can charge a ordinary Joe with violating someone else’s civil rights, but there also specific charges that that can only be leveled against someone acting under some state or federal umbrella, which is probably what **Diogenes the Cynic** was saying. That does make more sense, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![jmwatts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jmwatts/32/17348_2.png) [@jmwatts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmwatts)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/45 "2006-04-11T03:06:46Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > BTW, **Zero]**, if the movie you saw was the Judd/Greenwood/Gish snoozefest _Double Jeopardy_\*, then don’t trust it. The version of DJ they discuss in that movie has no relation to actual doctrine of double jeopardy. > > –Cliffy Just curious, but why? What was wrong with the DJ in the movie “Double Jeopardy”? The basic premise was, she couldn’t be tried for killing the same guy twice. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/46 "2006-04-11T03:34:37Z")
> [@jmwatts](#): > > The basic premise was, she couldn’t be tried for killing the same guy twice. The first time he wasn’t killed. Therefore there was no crime to be committed, and the first verdict is null and void. Since the same guy can’t be killed twice, the premise is flawed. In the real world the first verdict would have been dismissed and charges brought up for the real murder. ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/47 "2006-04-11T04:42:41Z")
> [@jmwatts](#): > > Just curious, but why? What was wrong with the DJ in the movie “Double Jeopardy”? > The basic premise was, she couldn’t be tried for killing the same guy twice. Again, I’m definitely not the expert here, but my understanding is this: Protection from double jeopardy says nothing about killing the same guy twice, it says you can’t be prosecuted for the same **crime** twice. Killing the same guy months or years later, in a different time and place, is definitely not the same crime. The fact that the guy who everybody thought was already dead happens to wind up really dead is just coincidence. It may be grounds to get the previous conviction overturned, but it’s not anything like the same crime. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/48 "2006-04-11T04:50:17Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > Ignatow was charged with mudering his fiancee and found not guilty. A year after the acquittal, new evidence was found, including photgraphs of the murder. Ignatow subsequently admitted to the crime. He was charged with perjury for lying to the FBI during their investigation, and served five years. > > The crime took place in Kentucky, and the original trial was circa 1991. As I now understand it, new evidence can’t be used to reinstate a charge after an acquittal, but it can be used to bring additional charges which may happen to be related to the one of which the defendant was acquitted. Correct? So, the hypothetical (former) defendant in the OP couldn’t be re-tried. However, if he had said, “I did it, _and I killed Joe Smith, too_” he might be charged with perjury for lying about the first murder and with Joe Smith’s murder based on the second half of his statement. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/49 "2006-04-11T06:11:16Z")
> [@otto](#): > > Acquittal stands as an absolute bar to re-trial for the same crime. If A is tried for murdering B, is acquitted, and the day after the verdict the police discover the murder weapon with B’s blood and A’s fingerprints, a signed, dated confession from A and a videotape of A committing the murder, A still goes free for the murder. The prosecution gets one bite at the apple. There is no appeal of a Not Guilty verdict. Hijack, but what if the day after the Not Guilty verdicy, we discover not only the murder weapon with B’s blood and A’s fingerprints, but also a 1,000,000 dollar transfer from A’s bank account to Juror C? Can A be tried again? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/50 "2006-04-11T06:42:34Z")
It’s an unsettled question. My guess is that the prosecution might make the attempt under the same theory as the aforementioned Aleman case, that a corrupt juror means that the defemdant was never in jeopardy. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/51 "2006-04-11T15:55:10Z")
How would ultimate fighting (in which the conestants are often maimed and sometimes killed) or boxing (ditto) come into play? ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/52 "2006-04-11T21:33:10Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > How would ultimate fighting (in which the conestants are often maimed and sometimes killed) or boxing (ditto) come into play? Both boxing and Ultimate Fighting are sanctioned by state athletic commissions in the places where bouts are held. As long as the commissions’ rules are followed and the particpants are willing, criminal charges wouldn’t apply. FWIW, the risk of death in Ultimate Fighting may be an effective marketing tool, but [this article last month says there has never been a death](http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/5373408) in a sanctioned UFC event or any other mixed-martial arts event. Sadly, the same can’t be said for boxing. Ther have already been five deaths in the pro ranks since last April. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/53 "2006-04-12T01:33:56Z")
> [@Arnold Winkelried](#): > > I would say it’s the way of saying “I am not guilty of the crime of which I am being accused”, e.g. I’m on trial for murder - not guilty could mean “sure I killed the guy, but it wasn’t murder, it was self-defense”. I disagree. That may in fact be the defense in a particular case, but it’s not what “not guilty” means. Any given defendant might be saying “I didn’t do it,” it might mean “I did it but it wasn’t/shouldn’t be illegal” as you suggest, or "I’m not sayin’ whether I did it or not. But the only thing “not guilty” means in every case is “Prove it.” –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/54 "2006-04-12T02:26:04Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > It’s an unsettled question. My guess is that the prosecution might make the attempt under the same theory as the aforementioned Aleman case, that a corrupt juror means that the defemdant was never in jeopardy. I’m not convinced. With one paid-off holdout juror, the best the defendant can expect from the payoff is a hung jury, in which case he could be retried. Unless that particular juror is exceptionally persuasive and convinces the rest of the jury to acquit, when they wouldn’t have done so otherwise? I dunno. That seems a lot more speculative than a paid-off judge, who can do all sorts of things to mess with the state’s case in terms of “guiding” voir dire, exclusion of evidence, a directed verdict, etc. ---
**Author:** ![A.R.Cane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@A.R.Cane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.R.Cane)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903/55 "2006-04-12T02:39:59Z")
> [@Elendil's Heir](#): > > I’m not convinced. With one paid-off holdout juror, the best the defendant can expect from the payoff is a hung jury, in which case he could be retried. Unless that particular juror is exceptionally persuasive and convinces the rest of the jury to acquit, when they wouldn’t have done so otherwise? I dunno. That seems a lot more speculative than a paid-off judge, who can do all sorts of things to mess with the state’s case in terms of “guiding” voir dire, exclusion of evidence, a directed verdict, etc. I think I would agree. How do you define “corrupt juror”? What if one juror is a writer and sees a lucrative book if the defendant goes free. If they were very persuasive, they could influence a not guilty verdict. What about the O.J. trial? There were allegedly several jurors that influenced the not guilty, for what appears to have been political revenge. Is that any more, or less, “corrupt” than a juror who is bribed ot threatened? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killer-confesses-afer-not-guilty/351903.md?page=2)