A woman is thought to have been murdered (corrected this first sentence from a previous comment). A man is arrested for it. He is offered a plea bargain deal that will get him 15 years or he can take his chances in court but would get life if found guilty. All they have is circumstantial evidence but the arrested man is convinced by his lawyer to plea bargain due to the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against him. (side-note: For this scenario, the man did NOT actually murder this woman as we find out later in this story but he just didn't want to take the chance of getting sentenced to life in prison). Man serves his 15 years and is released...no probation, he served his entire sentence. Knowing he did not murder this woman he looks for her after he is released and finds her. Ends up she wanted to disappear and start a new life and set this man up to be framed for her murder. He is obviously mad at this woman and after he finds her, he kills her for revenge of sending him to prison and losing 15 years of his life for something he didn't do. He is arrested again and admits to the police to killing her but does not worry about being charged for murder because he has already been convicted of her murder and served his sentence. Can he be charged, convicted and sent to prison again?
-
2Does this answer your question? Can "Double Jeopardy" be a loophole for murder? – phoog Jun 15 '20 at 04:32
-
@phoog while that question is similar and may have the same answer, in this scenario the man takes a plea deal (thus is "guilty" of the "first" crime) however, in that related question, Person A is acquitted (thus is "not guilty" of the "first" crime). These are different scenarios. – Andrew Jun 23 '20 at 17:13
-
Double Jeopardy of 1999 is not a good teacher what is double jeopardy... – Trish Aug 19 '20 at 21:49
-
@Andrew double jeopardy attaches regardless of whether the defendant is acquitted or convicted or enters a guilty plea, and in both of these scenarios the double jeopardy has attached to a different crime, so it does not preclude prosecution for the second. The differences are not relevant. – phoog Oct 20 '21 at 23:34
-
@phoog Yup! So you agree with me. The answer may be the same but the scenarios are different (acquittal vs conviction). – Andrew Oct 22 '21 at 16:46
-
@Andrew I agree that the scenarios are different. The question, however, is the same: having faced jeopardy for a crime, is a defendant protected against prosecution for a separate instance of the same crime? – phoog Oct 22 '21 at 21:05
4 Answers
Yes, because the crimes are different instances. Let's remove the guilty plea and the fact that it is murder: can a person assault a person, be tried and imprisoned, then assault the same person later – and get off by declaring "Double jeopardy!". No, it's not the same crime. It's the same type of crime, and involves the same victim, but it is still a different crime. The same with your proposed scenario. (Incidentally, your first line is wrong: the woman wasn't murdered, she was thought to have been murdered).
- 214,947
- 11
- 343
- 576
-
Thanks for your reply. Playing Devils advocate here-not arguing. I agree that you would not be able to assault someone, over and over without getting arrested each time. In my example, he didn't actually murder this person at first. Maybe in the plea bargain, the prosecutor may not (or cannot because no body is found) charge him with murder and that charge is available later to use Would a prosecutor be savvy to think ahead "just in case?" What are the charge options for when someone is thought to cause someones death but a body is never found? Probably depends on any # of scenarios. – Chris Grose Jun 14 '20 at 22:08
-
I disagree with the assault example because that is not an analogy of murder as portrayed by the OP. A person can be assaulted multiple times but murdered only once, whence it would be one same crime if the defendant subsequently kills the victim of whose previously false murder the defendant was sentenced and imprisoned. What prevents me from posting an answer to the OP's question is that I don't know whether for purposes of double jeopardy a plea bargain truly is tantamount to undergoing trial. If so, the defendant's argument of double jeopardy would have merit. – Iñaki Viggers Jun 14 '20 at 23:32
-
2People have been convicted with no body having been found, but in all cases there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim is dead (etc). If the evidence is strong enough, the accused can be tried for first degree murder. Given the 15 year sentence, I assume this is second-degree murder, though it could be manslaughter in a tough jurisdiction like Texas. – user6726 Jun 14 '20 at 23:55
-
1The specific details on "years served" can vary in this example.....I just threw "15 years" out there. My real question was whether someone can go to prison for a murder he didn't commit (whether he plead bargains or is convicted by a jury)...and then after release, murder that same person (for real) and not be charged again. – Chris Grose Jun 15 '20 at 00:11
-
@user6726 not in all cases. In some cases, the purported victim has turned up alive after the person convicted of the murder has been put to death. – phoog Jun 15 '20 at 04:27
This is the premise of the movie Double Jeopardy (1999), and it has already been debunked by Alan Dershowitz (among others):
Mr. DERSHOWITZ: No. It wouldn't work at all. Look, any lawyer could make the argument--25 years ago, I appealed a case and I actually won it. A guy tried to shoot somebody who he thought was alive, but was actually dead. And the court ruled that man dies but once and acquitted my man of murder charges. But today, the law on double jeopardy has become very restrictive. It has to be the same transaction. The same event. It even has to be in the same state.
Source: https://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/flatview?cuecard=34340 (currently unreachable)
Not double jeopardy, the man will have pleaded to having killing someone on a particular date (or possibly date range) in a particular manner for a particular reason. That will be the crime he was in jeopardy for and that jeopardy will be over.
Let’s take a look at a slightly different scenario, the man is a serial killer and confuses the details of two victim’s (S and A). He is tried and pleads guilty to the killing of victim S on a Monday by strangulation, evidence later comes to light that he in fact killed S on a Friday by stabbing, and it was victim A (then unknown to the authorities) that he killed on a Monday by strangulation. Arguing that he can’t be tried for the second murder isn’t going to fly. Different circumstances, different crimes. They would amend the name of the Monday victim, but just for accurate record keeping reasons (and family sensitivity), not because it was necessary in order to try him for the killing that took place on Friday.
That argument would have never been accepted, the state doesn’t owe him a free murder.
He could have been convicted of killing a person that never existed, would you expect him to be able to kill one person for free if it was proven that he falsely confessed?
In point of fact, not only can he be tried and convicted of the murder, he can be convicted of perjury for his false plea.
- 2,039
- 1
- 10
- 16
Can he be charged, convicted and sent to prison again?
No, it would be illogical. It turns out that your assumption about plea bargain preempts prosecution of the actual murder.
The premise of "different crimes" is a non-sequitur because a person can be murdered no more than once. Thus, any and all sets of specific facts about a murder of a person are (can only be) one and the same set of facts, regardless of whether or not the prosecutor got it/them right the first time.
Now, "a plea bargain itself is contractual in nature and 'subject to contract-law standards'", Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 90 (1986) (citations omitted). Insofar as a contract where a mistake "was made as to a basic assumption", "the contract is voidable by the adversely affected party unless he bears the risk of the mistake". See Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 151(1). Here it is irrefutable the adversely affected party is only the defendant: He got sentenced and imprisoned for the alleged murder of a woman who actually was alive.
Moreover, the mistake or risk of mistake was not defendant's. The defendant's decision on the plea bargain does not fit the alternative terms outlined in the Restatement at § 154(a) and (b). For instance, rather than representing to the prosecutor that he committed murder, the defendant merely agreed to waive his rights in a way that both (1) benefited the prosecutor, and (2) is in line with the prosecutor's demand(s). It is unlikely for the character of the plea bargain to be such as "neither you [defendant] nor I [prosecutor] are sure 'who' murdered her, but let's just assume you [defendant] did it".
At all times the defendant was aware that he did not commit the murder for which he was imprisoned pursuant to the plea bargain. This precludes the scenario of defendant's "limited knowledge" formulated in Restatement at § 154 (b).
The only possibility is that the court could disrupt the tenets of contract law under pretext of Restatement at § 154 (c), although that would be speculative and de facto imply double jeopardy because the defendant already served his time in prison. Indeed, it is explained that "[j]eopardy 'attaches' when [...] a plea is accepted" (please note that the Wikipedia page cites Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978), although I admittedly have not thoroughly read the opinion so as to pinpoint that assertion more precisely).
Consequently, the exchange of considerations in that contract and the defendant's compliance therewith forfeit the People's option to subsequently prosecute the murder of that specific woman (because, as aforesaid, murder can happen no more than once per victim).
- 1
- 4
- 68
- 95
-
To those who downvote the answer: Don't forget to give your estimate of how many times one same person can be murdered. That would clear up the misunderstanding (yours or mine). – Iñaki Viggers Jun 15 '20 at 20:07
-
3Being murdered once may preclude being murdered again for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean all possible murders of a person are the same crime. If I'm accused of robbing a bank in San Fransisco at 3:59pm and another in San Diego at 4pm on the same day, it's physically impossible for me to have done both, but that doesn't mean they are the same crime and they somehow collapse into each other. – D M Jun 18 '20 at 04:32
-
I'm now wondering if the same person can be murdered more than once. In my state you're guilty of murder if you "cause[] the death of another", and the courts have interpreted "cause the death" as whether your actions were a "substantial factor" in the death. If person A were to shoot person B and put them in critical condition, and person C were to illegally disconnect the life support, both actions might result in conviction for the murder of person B. But what if person A and person C are the same person? Person A has now caused the death twice. 2 substatial factors, 2 actions; 2 crimes. – D M Jun 18 '20 at 05:00
-
1@IñakiViggers “How many times can someone be murdered” is irrelevant. Sure, the person can only be murdered once. Conviction the second time is necessarily exoneration for the first time. That does not make the two crimes the same offense for double jeopardy. – cpast Jun 18 '20 at 05:10
-
@DM You are taking things way out of context. The banks in SF and SD are two different entities, but the OP's question is about [murder of] one same entity. Your example of B and A=C is also inapplicable because that entails multiple offenses (i.e., a course of action causing B to die) for none of which A=C had been even charged whereas in the OP's question the murderer already served his sentence for a death he had not caused yet. The OP's assumption implies a [prosecutor's] decision to bear the risk of mistake, which forfeits adding counts regarding the death of that victim. – Iñaki Viggers Jun 18 '20 at 08:10
-
@cpast "Conviction the second time is necessarily exoneration for the first time". That is pointless/meaningless because the murdered already served his sentence. Black's Law Dictionary defines exoneration as "[t]he removal of a [...] duty". Once a defendant has completed his [duty of] imprisonment, it is impossible to remove that duty from him. Too late. That precludes any subsequent prosecution for the death of the same person. – Iñaki Viggers Jun 18 '20 at 08:21
-
Iñaki Viggers...can you put your answers into layman's terms? One that a legal novice (like me) can understand. Thank you. – Christopher Grose Jun 18 '20 at 03:04
-
1"The banks in SF and SD are two different entities" - If they're branches of the same bank, they may well not be, legally. – D M Jun 18 '20 at 11:10
-
@DM You keep missing the point. A natural person (i.e., a human being) or a moral/legal person (such as a bank having one or more branches) can be robbed multiple times, but a natural person can die no more than once. Only the latter context relates to the OP's question: the death of a natural person (a death for which the murderer served his sentence before he actually murdered that person). – Iñaki Viggers Jun 18 '20 at 12:10
-
@ChristopherGrose "can you put your answers into layman's terms?" I don't see much legalese in the answer, so could you specify what clarifications you would like? do you mean an explanation of concrete words or concepts? if so, which ones? or do you mean the rationale? Maybe concepts from contract law such as "exchange of considerations" are throwing you off the track, so to speak, in which case the Wikipedia page for Contract will help. The Restatement is just a more formal enunciation of contract law, and it is cited by U.S. courts very often. – Iñaki Viggers Jun 18 '20 at 12:57
-
@IñakiViggers sure, a person can die only one time, but people can be convicted for murders that did not occur (just as they can be convicted for robberies that did not occur). So if you're convicted for a murder that did not occur, you can subsequently be convicted for murdering the purported victim in the previous crime. Consider instead the robbery of a unique item: perhaps the Louvre stages the theft of the Mona Lisa, instead locking it away in a vault. You are convicted. After you get out of prison, you steal the painting in revenge. Are you immune from prosecution? Of course not. – phoog Jun 23 '20 at 21:53
-
@phoog The plea bargain as described in the OP's question is a contract that precludes further prosecution of the murder of that specific woman (or, in the analogy you offer, the robbery of the unique item). Once the defendant entirely served his sentence of imprisonment pursuant to the plea bargain, the prosecutor can no longer void that contract (let alone breach it). Thus, there are two impediments to prosecution of the actual crime: double jeopardy and (arguably more important) contract law. – Iñaki Viggers Jun 23 '20 at 22:35