Helping out some inmates in prison, who can’t really do research:
If a defendant is convicted under law XYZ but law XYZ is later overturned by the Supreme Court, does he count as wrongfully-convicted (in terms of getting compensation from the government - assuming he did in fact commit the deed,) or does he have to have actually been innocent of the crime to get a payout? Some states, for instance, pay about $80,000 per year that one spent in prison if wrongfully convicted.
Can a prosecutor purposefully withhold some charges prior to trial so that, if a prisoner is freed years later, the prosecutor can then nail him with the charges that the prosecutor chose not to file years ago?
Does double jeopardy apply if there are multiple laws that criminalize the same type of deed (say, arson,) and the prisoner was freed after being convicted under one law - could the prosecutor then try to file charges again, with the other laws that cover the same crime type, without double jeopardy coming into play?
If a law is overturned by SCOTUS, does that mean everyone convicted under that law is entitled to walk free (if still in prison,) or are there nuances that come into play? For instance, “This law is ruled unconstitutional, however, in order to be freed, you have to have pled not guilty under the law and been convicted by a jury; if you simply plead guilty, then you’re still staying in prison” (hard to explain)
Sorry, I have to keep some things purposefully vague, so it may be hard to clarify.
In the Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003, the wrongfully convicted gay men did not have their convictions automatically overturned or expunged- they had to individually challenge those sentences and convictions.
There was a case in Santa Clara County, where a couple of goons from a biker gang beat a man to death. The DA charged first degree murder. They were acquitted, but a couple of jurors said later they would have convicted of manslaughter- but no such charges were ever made.
A good number of people have been convicted of Federal Charges brought later after their trial for state charges found them not guilty. IMHO this is double jeopardy, but the courts disagree. So, I am wrong, but I think that those rulings are wrong. One bite of the apple- you face one trial- get “not guilty” and IMHO it is over- except of course civil cases brought.
These are not easy questions, especially without the specific facts. Lawyers get paid for figuring these things out. I don’t think you’ll get helpful responses by fly by impressions here, even by lawyers. For example, the “withhold some charges” question depends on how close the hold back charges relate to the elements of the charged crimes, what the statute of limitations is, what jurisdiction, and a variety of other things. Most of your questions will require a lot more specifics than you’re able to share.
Famously the police officers who were acquitted in Rodney King beating which led to days of LA riots were prosecuted under federal laws and found guilty.
The reason double-jeopardy did not apply was because, technically, they were accused of a different crime. A weasel move but certainly possible.
I don’t think this is accurate. The reason DJ didn’t apply is because they were tried under different juristictions. I suspect the same could apply to two different states if elements of the crime occured on both sides of a boarder.
You can also look up Lesser Included Offense and the related Merger Doctrine, which relate to some of your questions. But as always, an actual lawyer looking at the specifics of the cases in question is needed for a real answer.
Regarding federal prosecution-the IRS can prosecute any individual for tax evasion from income resulting from crime even if the individual was never prosecuted (or acquitted) of the underlying crime.
It is how they finally set mob boss Al Capone to prison in 1931.