Cop Dies Of Wounds Inflicted 41 Years Ago: Cop Killer Arrested

[Judge Smails]

I'm a law and order guy myself and usually wouldn't have any mercy for a cop killer, but this seems a little fucked up to me.


Man Arrested 2nd Time for '66 Crime (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5589977)

Back on November 27, 1966 Philadelphia officer Walter Barclay was responding to a burglary at a beauty parlor when he was shot and wounded in the 66-hundred block of North 5th Street. The shooting would end the 23-year-old rookie's career after barely one and a half years, leaving him paralyzed.

30-year-old William Barnes was fingered as the shooter and was arrested shortly thereafter. He would serve most of a 15-year sentence for aggravated assault with attempt to kill. But the career criminal would spend most of his life in and out of prison.

On Sunday, Officer Barclay passed away at St. Mary Medical Center in Bucks County. Chief Inspector Fox said Tuesday night, "The medical examiner determined that the death was a result of complications stemming from him being shot and there subsequent ruling is that his death is a homicide." That ruling was made by a deputy coroner.

[Fat_Sunny]

I'm a law and order guy myself and usually wouldn't have any mercy for a cop killer, but this seems a little fucked up to me.


Man Arrested 2nd Time for '66 Crime (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5589977)

Back on November 27, 1966 Philadelphia officer Walter Barclay was responding to a burglary at a beauty parlor when he was shot and wounded in the 66-hundred block of North 5th Street. The shooting would end the 23-year-old rookie's career after barely one and a half years, leaving him paralyzed.


If The Poor Guy Was PARALYZED For All Of Those 41 Years, Then It Is Understandable Why His Family, Friends, And The Police Force Would Still Want More "Justice". It Does Smack Of "Double Jeopardy", But The Emotions Behind It Are Understandable.

[sailor]

it's understandable for the cops to feel this way. cooler heads will prevail. i can't see the DA putting this thru.

[El Mudo]

No statute of limitations on murder....doesn't matter if the cop had lived 3 days later, or in this case, many years later, it was still this guy's bullet that killed him. Its not double jeopardy because he served time for aggravated assault...when the guy died, that became a whole different issue. And besides, it took roughly the same amount of years to prosecute a lot of people who murdered blacks in the 50s and 60s (like Byron de la Beckwith)

[citymedic27]

If The Poor Guy Was PARALYZED For All Of Those 41 Years, Then It Is Understandable Why His Family, Friends, And The Police Force Would Still Want More "Justice". It Does Smack Of "Double Jeopardy", But The Emotions Behind It Are Understandable.

this isnt double jeopardy. he was orginally arrested, tried and convicted of Aggrevaited assualt, not homicide b/c the officer wasnt killed. They cant charge him with assault again, because that would be the double jeopardy but I believe he can be charged with the homicide.

[EliSnow]

this isnt double jeopardy. he was orginally arrested, tried and convicted of Aggrevaited assualt, not homicide b/c the officer wasnt killed. They cant charge him with assault again, because that would be the double jeopardy but I believe he can be charged with the homicide.

That may or may not be correct, depending upon whether Aggravated Assault is considered the "same offense" under double jeopardy caselaw.

Under double jeopardy, you can't be prosecuted twice for the same "offense." In interpreting this part of the provision, the Supreme Court has said that a "lesser included offense" is part of the same "offense" for double jeopardy purposes. Offenses are not part of the same offense where each offense requires proof of a fact that the other offense does not. So if you have an offense that requires proof of facts A & B, and another that requires proof of facts A, C & D , then these offenses are not part of the same offense. But if the first offense requires proof of facts A & B, and the second requires proof of facts A, B, C & D, then the two are part of the same offense (with the first being the lesser included offense), and you can have double jeopardy.

For example, in one case, a defendant had been convicted of "joyriding," which is using a car without the consent of the owner. He was later prosecuted and convicted of stealing the same car. Because "joyriding" is a lesser included offense to theft of the car, his conviction on the second offense was overturned on double jeopardy bases. In another case in front of the Supreme Court in 1980, the Court determined that conviction on rape charges precludes a later conviction of killing the rape victim in committing the rape.

So we may be seeing double jeopardy here.

[citymedic27]

That may or may not be correct, depending upon whether Aggravated Assault is considered the "same offense" under double jeopardy caselaw.

Under double jeopardy, you can't be prosecuted twice for the same "offense." In interpreting this part of the provision, the Supreme Court has said that a "lesser included offense" is part of the same "offense" for double jeopardy purposes. Offenses are not part of the same offense where each offense requires proof of a fact that the other offense does not. So if you have an offense that requires proof of facts A & B, and another that requires proof of facts A, C & D , then these offenses are not part of the same offense. But if the first offense requires proof of facts A & B, and the second requires proof of facts A, B, C & D, then the two are part of the same offense (with the first being the lesser included offense), and you can have double jeopardy.

For example, in one case, a defendant had been convicted of "joyriding," which is using a car without the consent of the owner. He was later prosecuted and convicted of stealing the same car. Because "joyriding" is a lesser included offense to theft of the car, his conviction on the second offense was overturned on double jeopardy bases. In another case in front of the Supreme Court in 1980, the Court determined that conviction on rape charges precludes a later conviction of killing the rape victim in committing the rape.

So we may be seeing double jeopardy here.


yeah, I see that, but I think the DA is going to argue that aggrevated assualt and homicide are to completely seperate crimes in this case, as in the ME conclusions. In the case you describe; the young man did indeed steal the vechical to joy ride with it, so that logic applies to the lesser crime. It also it makes sense, that you couldnt be retried for the rape, but you could be tried for the homicide in the instance above.
I would assume that the DA prosectuting this case has his ducks in a row to charge this man with the homicide of this officer. It would be interesting to find out if this gets held under the DJ statute.

[EliSnow]

yeah, I see that, but I think the DA is going to argue that aggrevated assualt and homicide are to completely seperate crimes in this case, as in the ME conclusions. In the case you describe; the young man did indeed steal the vechical to joy ride with it, so that logic applies to the lesser crime. It also it makes sense, that you couldnt be retried for the rape, but you could be tried for the homicide in the instance above.
I would assume that the DA prosectuting this case has his ducks in a row to charge this man with the homicide of this officer. It would be interesting to find out if this gets held under the DJ statute.

The ME conclusions have nothing to do with it. Also, you misread the example above. The person was convicted of rape, and it was later determined that he could not be tried for murder.

Truthfully, in my gut, I think aggravated assault with an intent to kill is a lesser included offense of murder. If the death occurred right away, I don't think that the person could be charged with both at the same time. Essentially, homicide is aggravated assault with an intent to kill and the only difference is where the victim dies. So homicide only has one additional element that aggravated assault does not. This is theoretical, and depending upon the PA statutes, this may not be true.

And I wouldn't assume that the DA has his ducks in a row. Although the concept is old, these types of "violations" still happen. EDIT: Also, I just read the article in full. The DA has not yet charged the person yet with homicide. They're thinking things over. The article doesn't mention double jeopardy, but talks about how they would need to prove the ME's conclusions, and that nothing else led to the person's death.

[Hottub]

The ME conclusions have nothing to do with it. Also, you misread the example above. The person was convicted of rape, and it was later determined that he could not be tried for murder.

Truthfully, in my gut, I think aggravated assault with an intent to kill is a lesser included offense of murder. If the death occurred right away, I don't think that the person could be charged with both at the same time. Essentially, homicide is aggravated assault with an intent to kill and the only difference is where the victim dies. So homicide only has one additional element that aggravated assault does not. This is theoretical, and depending upon the PA statutes, this may not be true.

And I wouldn't assume that the DA has his ducks in a row. Although the concept is old, these types of "violations" still happen. EDIT: Also, I just read the article in full. The DA has not yet charged the person yet with homicide. They're thinking things over. The article doesn't mention double jeopardy, but talks about how they would need to prove the ME's conclusions, and that nothing else led to the person's death.

The preceeding comments are only the observations of Mr. Snow.:wink:

[citymedic27]

The ME conclusions have nothing to do with it. Also, you misread the example above. The person was convicted of rape, and it was later determined that he could not be tried for murder.

Truthfully, in my gut, I think aggravated assault with an intent to kill is a lesser included offense of murder. If the death occurred right away, I don't think that the person could be charged with both at the same time. Essentially, homicide is aggravated assault with an intent to kill and the only difference is where the victim dies. So homicide only has one additional element that aggravated assault does not. This is theoretical, and depending upon the PA statutes, this may not be true.

And I wouldn't assume that the DA has his ducks in a row. Although the concept is old, these types of "violations" still happen.

i think that the ME findings are important, b/c a thousand things could cause the death of a paralizied man he will have to conclude that he was killed by this bullet not something else, that burden rests with the state, also, in his findings the bullet fired from this person caused him to be paralized, and eventually causes his death....which is homicide. The difference isnt where the victim dies, but I think IF is the better wording. If I get beat up bad, and live. Its aggreviated assualt, but if I die in the hospital, or on the scene, or from injuries suffered because of the assualt its homicide.

[EliSnow]

Also, for full disclosure's sake, I just skimmed the rape/homicide case I talked about above, and the analysis was a little different from the above and the murder the person was charged with was "felony murder." Because felony murder is murder done while committing some other felony, in that case rape, proof of rape (which was the first conviction) was a necessary element of the felony murder. As a result, the Court found double jeopardy. It also should be noted that there was some dissent on this result.

[citymedic27]

Also, for full disclosure's sake, I just skimmed the rape/homicide case I talked about above, and the analysis was a little different from the above and the murder the person was charged with was "felony murder." Because felony murder is murder done while committing some other felony, in that case rape, proof of rape (which was the first conviction) was a necessary element of the felony murder. As a result, the Court found double jeopardy. It also should be noted that there was some dissent on this result.

Sure in NH they have capital punishment on the books, for two cases only, murder of a police officer, and correct me if Im wrong, but I think the other is murder while comitting a kiddnapping or something strange like that.

can you link that case?

[EliSnow]

i think that the ME findings are important, b/c a thousand things could cause the death of a paralizied man, also, in his findings the bullet fired from this person caused him to be paralized, and eventually causes his death....which is homicide. The difference isnt where the victim dies, but I think IF is the better wording. If I get beat up bad, and live. Its aggreviated assualt, but if I die in the hospital, or on the scene, or from injuries suffered because of the assualt its homicide.

For the purposes of double jeopardy, the ME conclusions don't help you. The ME found that the victim died from the incident for which the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault.

As I said before, you have the same offense where one offense is the same as the other except for one additional element. In this analysis, the elements of both crimes would be the same, except homicide has an additional element - proof that the victim died. Aggravated assault does not have an additional element that homicide doesn't have -- you don't have to prove that the victim lived. As a result, it's the "same offense" as homicide under the relevant caselaw.

As another example, you can't be charged with attempted murder and murder, but not because attempted murder requires proof that the victim lived -- because it doesn't require that. You can't be convicted of both, because attempt murder is part of the same offense as murder.

[EliSnow]

BTW, I'm probably more familiar with this issue being an attorney, and recently taken the bar exam where this issue was one of the issues I had to study.

[citymedic27]

For the purposes of double jeopardy, the ME conclusions don't help you. The ME found that the victim died from the incident for which the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault.

As I said before, you have the same offense where one offense is the same as the other except for one additional element. In this analysis, the elements of both crimes would be the same, except homicide has an additional element - proof that the victim died. Aggravated assault does not have an additional element that homicide doesn't have -- you don't have to prove that the victim lived. As a result, it's the "same offense" as homicide under the relevant caselaw.

As another example, you can't be charged with attempted murder and murder, but not because attempted murder requires proof that the victim lived -- because it doesn't require that. You can't be convicted of both, because attempt murder is part of the same offense as murder.

I think that the findings of ME are more important than you think. If this officer died of an resp infection, pneomnia, or something else independant this would be no argument, but if he died of a direct result, of this bullet, if he suffered some sort of embolus or something directly connected to the bullet that paralized him then I think a homicide charge is more likely. This is what I think, there will be no charge, b/c of the grey area that we are talking about right now. He has already, been tried, convicted (on a lesser offense) and did his time in prison. Instead of dragging this all out again, it we all know how fast our legal system works. Its better off left alone.

I dont feel this is dboule jeopardy; because there would be some new evidence to bring about a different charge?

[citymedic27]

BTW, I'm probably more familiar with this issue being an attorney, and recently taken the bar exam where this issue was one of the issues I had to study.

Congrats on becoming an attorney, did you pass the bar? i would assume so, i majored in criminal justice in college. hahahahhaah

[EliSnow]

can you link that case?

Whalen v. United States (http://supreme.justia.com/us/445/684/case.html)


The difference isnt where the victim dies, but I think IF is the better wording.

I just wanted to clarify my points better because this question is not part of the analysis.

The double jeopardy analysis looks at elements of a crime. Each crime has various elements, often broken down in certain actions, and mental state (recklessness, intent, premeditation, etc.). Each element has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. Double jeopardy analyses looks to whether two offense share these elements of proof, and whether each offense has one additional element the other doesn't (again offense with proof of elements A + B is not the same as offense that require proof of A, C & D, because the first offense does not require proof of C & D, and the second does not require proof of B).

Although I'm not certain aggravated assault with intent to kill would seem to have all of the same elements as homicide, except that homicide has one additional element that has to be proven -- the victim is dead. While you are noting a practical reality, that someone charged with assault isn't charged with murder because the victim lived. If someone dies after an assault, the person has violated the assault statute and the murder statute. We don't charge them for both for several reasons, including double jeopardy.

[EliSnow]

I think that the findings of ME are more important than you think. If this officer died of an resp infection, pneomnia, or something else independant this would be no argument, but if he died of a direct result, of this bullet, if he suffered some sort of embolus or something directly connected to the bullet that paralized him then I think a homicide charge is more likely. This is what I think, there will be no charge, b/c of the grey area that we are talking about right now. He has already, been tried, convicted (on a lesser offense) and did his time in prison. Instead of dragging this all out again, it we all know how fast our legal system works. Its better off left alone.


My point is that the ME conclusions don't establish a lack of double jeopardy. If anything because he found that the officer died from the original assault, the findings back a double jeopardy analysis.

They are important to determining whether the defendant caused the death of the victim, but once that's established, double jeopardy doesn't involve them anymore.

[EliSnow]

Congrats on becoming an attorney, did you pass the bar? i would assume so, i majored in criminal justice in college. hahahahhaah

I've been an attorney since 1999, when I passed the New York bar. I passed the CT bar this past April.

[citymedic27]

My point is that the ME conclusions don't establish a lack of double jeopardy. If anything because he found that the officer died from the original assault, the findings back a double jeopardy analysis.

They are important to determining whether the defendant caused the death of the victim, but once that's established, double jeopardy doesn't involve them anymore.

ELiSnow 1 me 0

[citymedic27]

I've been an attorney since 1999, when I passed the New York bar. I passed the CT bar this past April.

i got nothing, anything for breakfast, Im fucking starving right now

[EliSnow]

I dont feel this is dboule jeopardy; because there would be some new evidence to bring about a different charge?

That's what we have been talking about -- is aggravated assault a different offense or charge from murder. Although I'm not certain about the elements for aggravated assault in PA, under the "same offense" analysis I've been discussing, it does not seem to be a different offense or charge from murder.

[EliSnow]

BTW, I love this type of debate. I love drafting legal arguments and analyses. In my new in-house job, I don't get to do it really at all, like I did when I was litigator with an outside law firm.

[citymedic27]

it does not seem to be a different offense or charge from murder.

wouldnt the difference between the two being the death of the officer? if the officer lived to be lets say 90 yrs, and died of old age it would be different, but I feel the COD is important in determining whether or not to presue this case

[citymedic27]

BTW, I love this type of debate. I love drafting legal arguments and analyses. In my new in-house job, I don't get to do it really at all, like I did when I was litigator with an outside law firm.

no worries, im always down for a good or bad argument. We should start the Ask the experts forum...lol

[EliSnow]

wouldnt the difference between the two being the death of the officer? if the officer lived to be lets say 90 yrs, and died of old age it would be different, but I feel the COD is important in determining whether or not to presue this case

That is a difference, but only between a lesser included offense and a greater offense. Proof of death would be an additional element that homicide has that aggravated assault does not have. HOWEVER, double jeopardy analysis requires that aggravated assault have proof of at least one element of proof that homicide does not. Right now, I don't see that it does (but it may).

You're right that cause of death is important to determining whether to pursue the case, but, as I said before, it doesn't change the double jeopardy analysis in this case.

[citymedic27]

That is a difference.

Thats a big difference, and since he was a police officer too, I think that automatically adds an additional element to this case.

[EliSnow]

Thats a big difference, and since he was a police officer too, I think that automatically adds an additional element to this case.

As I said, it doesn't change the double jeopardy analysis, though. Unless aggravated assault with intent to kill has an element of proof that homicide does not (even if the homicide has several additional elements that agg. assault does not), double jeopardy would seem to bar the second conviction.

As for the victim being a police officer, it adds additional elements of emotion, sensationalism, etc., but it also does not change the analysis.

[citymedic27]

As I said, it doesn't change the double jeopardy analysis, though. Unless aggravated assault with intent to kill has an element of proof that homicide does not (even if the homicide has several additional elements that agg. assault does not), double jeopardy would seem to bar the second conviction.

As for the victim being a police officer, it adds additional elements of emotion, sensationalism, etc., but it also does not change the analysis.

i just read the linked article.

"While to some it may seem to be a no-brainer that Barnes would be charged with homicide, criminal experts say an unbroken chain of medical evidence would have to be established before linking the death to the shooting."

if they link the death of this officer to this shooting incident. I can say with 99.9% certainty that they charge this man with murder. The death of this officer adds the new element to the crime.

[EliSnow]

i just read the linked article.

"While to some it may seem to be a no-brainer that Barnes would be charged with homicide, criminal experts say an unbroken chain of medical evidence would have to be established before linking the death to the shooting."

if they link the death of this officer to this shooting incident. I can say with 99.9% certainty that they charge this man with murder. The death of this officer adds the new element to the crime.

:wallbash:

You're missing my point. Yes, the death of the officer adds a new element. As I said, homicide would appear to have one additional element that aggravated assault does not have. But that doesn't mean it is a different offense under double jeopardy analysis, because aggravated assault does not require proof of an element that homicide does not. So, aggravated assault requires proof of elements, A & B. Homicide requires proof of A, B & C, with C being proof of death. It's a lesser included offense.

It's like the joyriding case. Joyriding requires use/taking of a car without consent of the owner. It does not require an intent to keep the car, which theft does along with taking without consent. As a result, joyriding is a lesser included offense, and therefore is the same offense under double jeopardy analysis.

Aggravated assault with intent to kill does not appear to require proof of death, but would have all of the other elements that homicide requires. Therefore, because it's a lesser included offense, it's the same offense for double jeopardy purposes, and he can't be convicted of the crime.

[citymedic27]

:wallbash:

You're missing my point. Yes, the death of the officer adds a new element. As I said, homicide would appear to have one additional element that aggravated assault does not have. But that doesn't mean it is a different offense under double jeopardy analysis, because aggravated assault does not require proof of an element that homicide does not. So, aggravated assault requires proof of elements, A & B. Homicide requires proof of A, B & C, with C being proof of death. It's a lesser included offense.

It's like the joyriding case. Joyriding requires use/taking of a car without consent of the owner. It does not require an intent to keep the car, which theft does along with taking without consent. As a result, joyriding is a lesser included offense, and therefore is the same offense under double jeopardy analysis.

Aggravated assault with intent to kill does not appear to require proof of death, but would have all of the other elements that homicide requires. Therefore, because it's a lesser included offense, it's the same offense for double jeopardy purposes, and he can't be convicted of the crime.

Got it!

[MrPink]

The issue isn't whether this case is an example of double jeopardy, but whether cops should get special treatment. Every time someone shoots a cop, they get life in prison. If someone shoots me, they get 18 months. Cops are no better than you or me and shouldn't be treated as such. The guy that shot the cop should be let free since this case is just ridiculous.

[Judge Smails]

Hmmmmm. . . 41 years. . . 41 shots. . . maybe there's a Springstein song coming out of all this?

[Yuppie_Scum]

Being charged for murder after being charged for assault if the victim later dies does not implicate double jeopardy. It is an exception to the rule. This makes sense because sometimes when a person is charged with assault, the victim may be severely injured and survive for a period of time before dying.

The case will most likely fail on causation grounds, however.

[Yuppie_Scum]

The issue isn't whether this case is an example of double jeopardy, but whether cops should get special treatment. Every time someone shoots a cop, they get life in prison. If someone shoots me, they get 18 months. Cops are no better than you or me and shouldn't be treated as such. The guy that shot the cop should be let free since this case is just ridiculous.

I disagree completely, but if this is how you feel then write your legislator.

[EliSnow]

Being charged for murder after being charged for assault if the victim later dies does not implicate double jeopardy. It is an exception to the rule. This makes sense because sometimes when a person is charged with assault, the victim may be severely injured and survive for a period of time before dying.



Any citation for this exception? I'm not familiar with it. It may be true, I'm just not aware.

[Yuppie_Scum]

Any citation for this exception? I'm not familiar with it. It may be true, I'm just not aware.

Diaz v. US, 223 US 442 (1912) -- predates Blockburger (which is the general rule you explained very well), but still good law.

[EliSnow]

I've found an article (http://tennessean.com/local/archives/04/11/62085627.shtml?Element_ID=62085627) discussing this issue with another case.

The article does show there is a debate, and cites a very old Supreme Court case, but there are subsequent rulings that I think would overrule that case. One proponent suggests that it doesn't apply because the crime did not occur until later. I don't think that analysis would fly though. The crime happened at the time of assault, regardless of when the full results happened.

[EliSnow]

Diaz v. US, 223 US 442 (1912) -- predates Blockburger (which is the general rule you explained very well), but still good law.

You're right that it hasn't been overturned, but with the Blockburger test, I'm not sure it's still good law. It could be, but if I was the defendant's counsel, I'd be challenging a prosecution on double jeopardy grounds.

It's an interesting case though. The other difference as point out in the article is that that case involved misdemeanor assault, and not an aggravated assault which led to 15 years of imprisonment.

[ChrisTheCop]

I wont even TRY to join the debate being held here by our esteemed legal eagle buddays (though i will note how impressive their arguments are...with the exception of Mr Pink's).

I can only comment on experience, which leads me to believe that the DA will not file the charge, simply because, as stated in the story, the chain of evidence has been given too much time and too many opportunities to be broken. If they went ahead with the case, too many doors are already left open for a good defense lawyer to slam shut, ie, doctor's, nurses, orderlies, even family members handling of the body in the past 30 years could have had some effect on the outcome, whereas had the body been allowed to just heal itself, he'd still be alive today...blah blah blah, lawyer speak, etc....

Note to self: when shot in the line of duty, die quickly, so the bastard wont be late for his reservations in hell.

[citymedic27]

You're right that it hasn't been overturned, but with the Blockburger test, I'm not sure it's still good law. It could be, but if I was the defendant's counsel, I'd be challenging a prosecution on double jeopardy grounds.

It's an interesting case though. The other difference as point out in the article is that that case involved misdemeanor assault, and not an aggravated assault which led to 15 years of imprisonment.

is there a chance that I could come back and win this one?

[citymedic27]

The issue isn't whether this case is an example of double jeopardy, but whether cops should get special treatment. Every time someone shoots a cop, they get life in prison. If someone shoots me, they get 18 months. Cops are no better than you or me and shouldn't be treated as such. The guy that shot the cop should be let free since this case is just ridiculous.

i disagree with you sir, b/c peope that kill cops, should get capital punishment if convicted. Whether you like or not, the protection of those who protect us is a necessary. Im sorry that you feel that way.

[Snacks]

The issue isn't whether this case is an example of double jeopardy, but whether cops should get special treatment. Every time someone shoots a cop, they get life in prison. If someone shoots me, they get 18 months. Cops are no better than you or me and shouldn't be treated as such. The guy that shot the cop should be let free since this case is just ridiculous.

:thumbup: :clap: If this happened to me and after 41 years and I died. No DA would want to go after this guy again. The criminal served his time for his crime. The courts decided it back then, this guy has to be 70+, what will more jail time do? It wont bring back the dead guy and he already served 15 years for his crime.

Being charged for murder after being charged for assault if the victim later dies does not implicate double jeopardy. It is an exception to the rule. This makes sense because sometimes when a person is charged with assault, the victim may be severely injured and survive for a period of time before dying.

The case will most likely fail on causation grounds, however.

Even if thats all true, its been 41 fucking years. Normally a case like that usually gets changed to murder when it all happens within days or even months, not 41 years later.

[citymedic27]

:thumbup: :clap: If this happened to me and after 41 years and I died. No DA would want to go after this guy again. The criminal served his time for his crime. The courts decided it back then, this guy has to be 70+, what will more jail time do? It wont bring back the dead guy and he already served 15 years for his crime.



Even if thats all true, its been 41 fucking years. Normally a case like that usually gets changed to murder when it all happens within days or even months, not 41 years later.

there is no statutue of limitations on homicide. Since the deputy ME ruled the death a homicide it could 141 yrs, they still have the right to prosecute this case if they choose too or if they even can.

[EliSnow]

is there a chance that I could come back and win this one?

No.

[citymedic27]

No.

damn, i was hoping for a hail mary pass

[EliSnow]

damn, i was hoping for a hail mary pass

Well, the biggest reason is that I think the debate has been exhausted. Yuppiescum identified U.S. Supreme Court precedent which, if still good law, likely would rule out double jeopardy. I've explained the analysis the U.S. Supreme Court came up in the years following that case thay could be used to overturn or distinguish that case. None of us are going to know unless it gets to the Supremes again.

And the other reason is that you're on the bench, and can't do a Hail Mary pass from there. :tongue:

[citymedic27]

And the other reason is that you're on the bench, and can't do a Hail Mary pass from there. :tongue:

Im never on the bench...always looking to make a play

[Death Metal Moe]

What ever happened to vigilante justice?

No one takes the law into their own hands and kills pricks like this anymore. I yearn for the olden days.

[A.J.]

What ever happened to vigilante justice?

No one takes the law into their own hands and kills pricks like this anymore. I yearn for the olden days.

Me too.

http://www.filmposters.com/images/posters/9728.jpg