Interesting story about the recent death of a shooting victim:

Shooting Victim Dies

The Coroner has concluded that the victim died as a result of his being shot. The thing is, the guy was shot almost 41 years ago. The person who shot him was tried, convicted, and sent to prison and served his sentence for the shooting.

Should the shooter now be tried for murder? I can see a case for it, but have to wonder if there would be a question of "double jeopardy". Also, the guy was 64 years old. It's not necessarily unusual for 64 year old men to die of natural causes.

Whaddya' think?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Try the guy. If the shooting damaged an organ etc that was weakened and resulted in his death then it is a legitimate claim. If there is a link then the shooter has robbed this person of further years of his life.

"Complications from a shooting 30 or 40 years ago don't take 30 or 40 years to surface," said Jeffrey Lindy, a former federal prosecutor now working as a defence lawyer.

This guy is a defence lawyer not a medical practitioner so he would have no idea if these complications could or could not surface. I am sure medical people could affirm either way.

What of the fact that the guy was tried for the shooting, convicted, sentenced to prison, and has served that sentence?
Is that simply a non-issue?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

He was not tried or convicted of murder which he is debatably now responsible for. Add the additional sentence if there is one to what he has served.

Hey Steve, have you seen the recent film Fracture with Ryan Gosling and Anthony Hopkins? It's pretty good. Anyway, it deals with something similar to this. But with a different time increment involved.

I assume that when he was originally charged he was charged with attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon or other such legal mumbo-jumbo. At any rate, he couldn't have been charged with murder since the guy wasn't dead. Thus if he were now charged with murder, it wouldn't be double-jeopardy. However, I don't think that he should be tried thus, having served time for the shooting... and that's an awful long time for a wound to kill someone.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

This is a good topic. These questions have arisen before. Each state may vary in case law but the general principle is that death must happen within a reasonable time after the alleged causation or else the alleged causation is deemed too speculative or no longer fairly the cause of death. All people wear down over time and perish and it happens due to the wear and tear of life in addition to the natural ageing process that gradually erodes the body's ability to fend off, recuperate and regenerate on its behalf. I'm sure all those who participated in old schoolyard fights, sports penalties, those causing injuries from negligence, the stresses your bosses and family cause, etc, could be said to have played some tangible part in eventually ending the road of life when the time comes. That's why claims like this are usually not allowed. I'd imagine if it is allowed in this case that reasonable doubt is apparent for the same reasons.

The guy shot him. The victim had no say in how he was going to physically impacted. The shooter deserves no leniency because his victim took so long to die. If it can be proved that his life was shortened because of the attack then the perp has still got a price to pay.

I haven't, but it looks pretty good. The last movie I saw him in was "Murder By Numbers"...

I can see if, before the guy went to trial, the victim died. There's a clear case for murder. This is far less clear-cut, though...

I wonder what was determined to be the actual cause of death...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I'm not a legal person at all, but I am assuming that if he was tried and convicted of shooting the man who lived, then he would have served his sentence based on a lesser charge than murder, therefore I'm not sure if double-jeopardy applies here. Does anyone with a legal background on the Forum know?

That's quite a good point. I suppose we have to wonder how we would view the situation if the man had been shot, and had been in a coma for the past 40+ years before dying. I'm sure we wouldn't even be questioning the case. Therefore, should it be regarded any different? I honestly don't know the answer to that.

The SCOTUS has given a stingy interpretation to the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution over the years, something that has often led to criticism as valuing the most stringent form over substance and presumed real intent.

Courts applying SCOTUS precedent would likely hold that such a prosecution would not be barred under the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution (but it could rule a trial after these years violates due process or is legally insufficient, etc) provided the lesser charge of the attempted murder conviction gets merged into any resulting murder conviction and sentence along with credit for time served, fines and costs paid, and other conditions credited toward the murder conviction and sentence.

Double jeopardy as a legal concept, however, can and often is interpreted more broadly by state courts citing state constitution double jeopardy protections. Some states also provide double jeopardy statutes that offer broader protections.

Quite frankly, I wonder what the Coroner's finding would've been had the shooter died ten years ago...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

If I remember rightly the old common law rule was a year and a day. If the death happened within the year and a day the it was murder, if outside of that then it was manslaughter. But that was when medical science was pretty rudimentary in England so they had a rule of thumb approach. On this one. I have to ask, what's the point? The offender is in the bin, he was pinched and tried and convicted and sentenced. I have to ask what public policy imperative is in play here.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

It would seem to me that it could set a very dangerous precedent, that being whether or not we should ever try somoene for attempted murder.

If a thug shoots someone, and is tried for attempted murder, could a possible means for getting the case thrown out be that we should really wait to see if the person who got shot is going to die?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

He can't/won't be tried for the same event/crime twice. It makes no sense to do so.

He served the sentence for the crime he committed and that's the end of it.

No, I'm not simplifying. It was simple to start with.