Legal question about old Quincy episode

Factual Questions
1

Our favorite shouty (punk-music-hating, too) forensic pathologist has managed to take an old thighbone found in a ditch, and uncovered enough evidence of murder that the killer is now holding Quincy at gunpoint, working himself up to kill the doc, after leaving a couple of other folks seriously injured:

Quincy: You kill me and it’ll be life in jail for you.

Killer: It is already.

Quincy: No, that’s what I’m trying to tell you. The statute of limitations ran out on the burglary a long time ago.

K: How about Charley? Doesn’t run out on murder.

Q: Well, it was self defense, wasn’t it?

K: How’d you know about that?

Q: From the angle of the bullet wound on the thigh bone. You see, it was straight down. Straight downward. It would’ve been impossible for anybody else to inflict that wound.

Q: I figured you and Trout were struggling for the gun while he held it.

K: We pulled off a $50,000 robbery. And the jerk says he wants to give all the loot to his old man to pay off the farm. You were right. He was ready to shoot me. I grabbed him, one accidentally
went off into his thigh.

But he wouldn’t give up. Another one got him in the heart.

Q: I’ll testify to self-defense.

K: That doesn’t take care of the kid, the kid and the old lady.

Q: There’s nothing to take care of. They’re fine.

I only said they were dead to get you off their tail.

K: Bull.

Q: No. Check with L.A. General.

You’ll see they’re fine.

But I’m not going to lie to you, Gideon.

You’ll be charged with assault with intent to kill.

That’s 1 to 14 years.

K: That’s a long time.

Q: Yes, it is. But it’s not forever. You kill me and it will be.

Quincy’s lying or mistaken, right? Two accomplices fight after a robbery and one dies? Self-defense doesn’t enter into, right? That’s got to be felony murder, and even if it’s some lesser degree of homicide, the statute of limitations doesn’t start until the murder is discovered? Or am I wrong about that?

P.S. Neither Q or K mention the other crime recently committed - attempted rape (apparently because the killer wanted to disrupt the investigation - the victim was one of Quincy’s students who was working on the “hey, we found this old bone” project).

2

IANAL:

I’d think the felony murder rule would apply.

The felony murder rule is a law in most states and under federal law that allows anyone who is accused of committing a violent felony to be charged with murder if the commission of that felony results in the death of someone. The people involved in the felony may be charged for murder under the rule even if they had no intention of killing someone.

Since the death occurred as part of another felony, even if by accident, it is murder.

But hey…whatever gets Quincy out of the room.

3

Agreed. Talking the guy down was vital, even if Quincy was lying or mistaken.

P.S. The coverup of the murder was wild - he told the victim’s father that the victim had volunteered to serve in Vietnam and been killed, and that he (the killer) had kindly handled all the interaction with the Army and brought the body home for a closed casket burial (the killer had picked up a John Doe body at the morgue).

4

It’s really unclear to me how far the felony murder rule goes. And whether it applies in CA where Quincy is. e.g.

  1. Two dudes rob a bank and shoot and kill somebody in the bank, then the getaway driver takes them to the hideout. A week later the driver is apprehended while buying cigs at the 7-11. Felony murder rule applies and the driver is guilty of murdering the bank customer despite never setting foot in the bank or hurting anyone.

  2. Two dudes rob a bank, get away, hide the loot, separately go on the lam. 5 years later when the coast is clear they meet up to retrieve and divide the loot, then somebody gets greedy, they struggle over a gun and bad guy #1 shoots and kills bad guy #2. Felony murder rule from the robbery ? Totally inapplicable IMO. Murder, yes, but not the accomplice rule.

Albeit IANA criminal lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

5

That’s my take; what felony were they committing at that time? It’s not like “Once you committed a felony, it’s Felony Murder until the end of time”, it has to be associated with the felony in some substantial way.

6

Some interesting thoughts here, CRIMINAL LAW-DEATH OF A CO-FELONFELONY-MURDER DOCTRINE in an opinion of a case where one felon was charged with felony murder because of the justified killing, by the victim, of his accomplice.

Prior to the instant case, the only cases holding the doctrine applicable to the death of a co-felon, were those in which a co-felon either accidently caused his own death or was unintentionally killed by another felon.

7

IIRC, felony murder also applies to accomplices of a crime if the police kill one of the perps during the crime. There was some suggestion that anyone involved in the Jan 6 insurrection was liable for felony murder once Ashli Babbitt was killed by the police.

But back to Quincy - I guess the question is how far from the actual robbery were they?If they had travelled in a straight line in the same getaway car to the scene of the shooting, one can argue it is still part of the crime they were acting out. If they’d met up the next day to split the proceeds, then it’s hard to argue the original felony is still in progress. Depending on the situation, there’s an argument to be made. Where’s Perry Mason or Matlock when you need a good lawyer? Sorry, that excludes Matlock. Better call Saul.

(Is possession of proceeds from crime a felony? Is fighting over a large pile of money a felony?)

8

It occurs to me, too, that after many years the only one who can give the timeline is the surviving perp - “it happened an hour later” or “ithappened the next day”. It doesn’t appear in the script that the perp gives Quincy an exact timeline. Of course, I assume this is Quincy in the days before Miranda, so Quincy was not obliged to tell the perp he had the right to shut up.

Plus, the DA then has to decide - felony murder, where self defense would not apply, or murder, where he would have to contend with Quincy telling the court it was a struggle for a gun and self-defense could be a factor. If the DA relied on felony murder, he would have to prove it was part of a crime in progress - iffy - and risk the jury or an appeal court rejecting that. (If the jury accepted the “next day” scenario then the guy walks? Can you charge a guy with felony murder with an option for the jury to find for manslaughter instead?)

9

The forensic evidence seems…weak.

Based on that exchange, the prosecution could argue that the struggle for the gun occurred after “Killer” pulled the weapon on his victim, so the angle of the thigh injury isn’t important. And it’s a wee bit difficult to believe that a bullet in the heart was the result of a second accidental discharge during the struggle.

But what do I know? I only had two months on forensic path rotations, while Quincy had decades of experience solving unsolvable medical mysteries, confronting criminals and overcoming corporate conspiracies.

Think about that, and we’ll be back with more after these ads for LifeAlert, Medicare supplement plans and the amazing foot pedal machine that lets you get lots of beneficial exercise while slumped on your couch.

10

I’m watching it on DVD, so Joe Namath has not appeared to tell me about reverse mortgagese

11

Even with Miranda, Quincy had no such obligation.

For one, he’s not law enforcement. He’s a witness who can testify to what the defendant told him.

Even if he was law enforcement, the perp was not in custody, which is a necessary prerequisite to any Miranda obligation.

Finally, it seems that the perp voluntarily spoke with Quincy. That alone would obviate any claim that he was being interrogated.

12

Yeah, the episode was well past Miranda, but Miranda doesn’t apply for all the reasons you specify.

It occurs to me that the father of the victim has a civil case for wrongful death.

Can anyone answer the question of whether the statute of limitations would have started, since until Quincy’s student found the bone, no one (other than the killer) knew a crime had been committed?

13

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

But was this murder?

14

In some cases you only have to be “The State” although I don’t know how far that extends. I know under Garrity that if you are a public employee that is being questioned by your boss about illegal activity you have 5th Amendment rights even if they are not law enforcement.

15

Good point; I got myself confused by Quincy’s reference to the SoL - but he was talking about the robbery, which was not an unknown crime.

He’s still going down for the present-day attempted murders and rape.

Is there a statute of limitations on manslaughter, by the way?

16

That has nothing to do with Miranda , though. The Fifth says the government can’t compel you to incriminate yourself - in Garrity they were told that anything they said could be used against them in a criminal proceeding and that they had the right not to answer questions ( the basics of a Miranda warning) , but if they refused they would be terminated. They were convicted and the convictions were overturned because they were compelled to answer by the threat of termination. Basically you still have the same rights even though the government is your employer in this situation.

Quincy wasn’t the bad guy’s employer. He didn’t have the bad guy in custody ( if anything, it was the other way around ) and bad guy was free to not answer and/or walk away so this admission wasn’t compelled.

17

But I think it’s clear that when the killer is holding a gun on someone (Quincy), the killer is not “in custody.” His statements might even be “excited utterances,” right?

18

I get all that. I’m just wondering if the requirement for Mirandizing is limited to LEOs or anyone employed by the state questioning a suspect. I suspect it’s no unless the state employee can place someone in custody. In other words

But is it possible someone else could take someone into custody? For example I’ve been told (but I think it is an urban legend) that in Washington, the only person that can arrest a sheriff is coincidently the coroner.

19

There is a difference between someone employed but the state and an “agent of the state.” Being a janitor at the courthouse does not grant you special powers or responsibilities under the law. Someone who is not employed by any government agency can be considered an agent of the state if the police use them to further the investigation.

Even for police Miranda isn’t required unless there is both custody and interrogation. Quincy can question someone acting as an agent of the state but he doesn’t take anyone into custody. I don’t know of any Quincy caselaw but it is an established exception to Miranda for jailhouse snitches. They are acting as agents of the state and the suspect is in custody but Miranda is not required.

20

My main point was - I assume the state cannot pursue both felony murder and regular murder charges.

If they go for felony murder, the DA have to prove a crime was in progress. There’s no timeline, the fight over the money could have happened the next day or next week, long after the burglary was done, therefore felony murder may not apply.

If they go for just plain murder murder, then the self-defense argument comes into play. Quincy would have to testify the perp told him it was self-defense. It’s not beyond reasonable doubt that a person shot in the leg does not drop the weapon immediately but keeps strugging when shot in the leg - especially if he’s trying to save daddy and the family farm. We have only the perp’s word that the next shot was “through the heart” and he’s not the forensic pathoogist in the case. (I presume there wasn’t much left of the rest of the body if there’s a free-floating femur?)

Either way, conviction for the old “murder” seems a stretch.

Whether Quincy “arrested” or detained the suspect depends on how they ended up in the room together. Did Quincy corner him, or was he coming looking for Quincy? If Quincy went looking for him to ask a few questions, that seems the essence of “questioning”.

As for who is covered by Miranda, I don’t think the courts would let the police get away with “He asked for a lawyer, we can’t interrogate him further, but send in the janitor to ask a few questions…”