PN-G bamatex Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/08/death-james-brady-reagan-press-secretary-ruled-homicide/ I have a question for the legal experts. John Hinckley, Jr., was found not guilty by reason of insanity of all of the counts against him, including the attempted murder of James Brady. Since this has now been ruled a homicide, he couldn't now be charged with murder, could he? It would be a different charge, but wouldn't that still violate the double jeopardy clause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/08/death-james-brady-reagan-press-secretary-ruled-homicide/ I have a question for the legal experts. John Hinckley, Jr., was found not guilty by reason of insanity of all of the counts against him, including the attempted murder of James Brady. Since this has now been ruled a homicide, he couldn't now be charged with murder, could he? It would be a different charge, but wouldn't that still violate the double jeopardy clause? I heard this. This is interesting in the fact that originally no one was murdered. All 13 counts were dropped by reason of insanity. But now, can this murder charge be in play without any double jeopardy concerns? It would appear that could be the case. Interesting to see how this goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Super fascinating scenario. Since murder is obviously not a "lesser included offense" of attempted murder, prosecution is not barred there. And I would assume murder has at least one additional element that has to be proven that attempted murder does not. Still, I have a hard time having this pass the smell test with me. When the conduct is exactly the same in either charge - and he was found crazy the first time - let it rest IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TROJANSWIN Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Either way, you can bet there will be some new gun control legislation attached to this. If a gun can be shot today and kill someone 33 years later, they must be banned!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/08/death-james-brady-reagan-press-secretary-ruled-homicide/ I have a question for the legal experts. John Hinckley, Jr., was found not guilty by reason of insanity of all of the counts against him, including the attempted murder of James Brady. Since this has now been ruled a homicide, he couldn't now be charged with murder, could he? It would be a different charge, but wouldn't that still violate the double jeopardy clause? Let's think about this: Do you think they can make the connection between the bullet years ago and his death now as the cause? Not knowing all his medical details, on the service I would think maybe not. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 Super fascinating scenario. Since murder is obviously not a "lesser included offense" of attempted murder, prosecution is not barred there. And I would assume murder has at least one additional element that has to be proven that attempted murder does not. Still, I have a hard time having this pass the smell test with me. When the conduct is exactly the same in either charge - and he was found crazy the first time - let it rest IMO. You are right but you are wrong. Murder is not a lesser included offense but that has no bearing. Att Murder is the lesser included offense and if a person is convicted of the lesser included offense, those elements can no longer be used against him. It would be double jeopardy. All of the lesser included offenses discussion seems to be a moot point however. In wikipedia it says that John Hinkley Jr was tried on 13 federal counts. I am assuming that the shooting of Brady was one if them. The article says that he was found not guilty by reasons of insanity. If he was found not guilty, he can no longer be tried for any of those charges. That is assuming that not guilty was for all counts and that shooting Brady was one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 ^ Paragraph 2 - isn't that what I said? He was also tried, apparently, in the District of Columbia from what I read? If so, they don't have the ability to try him at the other level to get around double jeopardy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 ^Paragraph 2 - isn't that what I said? He was also tried, apparently, in the District of Columbia from what I read? If so, they don't have the ability to try him at the other level to get around double jeopardy. No. Like I said, it is a yes and no answer. Yes murder is not lesser included (that is your yes). In the same sentence you went on to say, "prosecution is not barred". I believe that is your "no". Attempted Murder is the lesser included offense and that bars any further prosecution for that action. In my opinion prosecution is barred. The level of the offense has no bearing. If it happened in a place that has dual jurisdiction (federal and state) and only one gets a guilty on a lesser included offense or even a not guilty verdict, the other jurisdiction can prosecute. For example if a guy kills a president, he can be tried for murder under federal law and under the state law where it happened, no matter what happened in the other jurisdiction. I don't think DC has any state jurisdiction over it so only the feds can (and already did) file charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 No. Like I said, it is a yes and no answer. Yes murder is not lesser included (that is your yes). In the same sentence you went on to say, "prosecution is not barred". I believe that is your "no". Attempted Murder is the lesser included offense and that bars any further prosecution for that action. In my opinion prosecution is barred. The level of the offense has no bearing. If it happened in a place that has dual jurisdiction (federal and state) and only one gets a guilty on a lesser included offense or even a not guilty verdict, the other jurisdiction can prosecute. For example if a guy kills a president, he can be tried for murder under federal law and under the state law where it happened, no matter what happened in the other jurisdiction. I don't think DC has any state jurisdiction over it so only the feds can (and already did) file charges. Well, you sparked my interest enough to research it a little more and, as I thought, I was correct. I think where you are getting lost is the distinction of "lesser included offenses." While jeopardy attaches to a lesser included offense when tried for the greater offense, the reverse is not true. So, as I suspected, I think the State could try him for murder because it contains an element the lesser included does not. The Supreme Court's Diaz decision is helpful in explaining why:http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/223/442/case.html I don't think he will be retried though. As I said, it still is a situation that doesn't pass the smell test. Furthermore, the causation issue would be a nightmare, is not impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthoftheBorder Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 I guess from here on out, if person A shoots person B, and person B does not die from the shot and lives for 30 or so years before they pass away, then person A can be charged and tried for "attempted murder" at the time of the shooting, But when person B does pass away, the charge can them be "upgraded to murder"! That is what is trying to be attempted here? Of course this only applies to the use of guns and not knives, hammers, pick axes and or someones bare fists, because guns (and not any,other weapon used to injure, maime or kill) are inherenly evil within their being and something has to be done about them!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.