Trigger Mike Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 I like old TV shows and last night we watched Matlock and a client was convicted on killing his wife even though no body was found. After he got out 7 years later the client found his wife alive and a con artist going off with the million dollar life insurance (how she got it is another odd one). The client was accused of killing his wife so Matlock tried to get it dismissed under double jeopardy. I'm curious what would happen under those circumstances? could he be tried to killing his wife after being convicted of killing her before even though he had not done it before? turned out someone else did it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Barleycorn, SASS #76982 Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Yes, just because she was found to be alive he would not be able to legally kill her at a later date just because he was wrongly convicted the previous time. That would be absurd, but hey its TV. PS it would be a different charge as the date of the killing would be different. He could not be charged with killing her again on the first date. The court would have vacated the first conviction if she was proven to be alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpo Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 People Will Talk. Cary Grant movie. He has a friend - Mr. Gunderson. Gunderson had a friend and a sweetheart. They went mountain climbing. The girl stayed back at the inn. The friend hit Gunderson in the head with a rock. That's when he discovered that his friend and his sweetheart were sweethearts. They have a bloody knock-down-drag-out on the mountain, and it gets dark and the friend runs off. Gunderson goes back to the inn, and when the girl sees him all bloody, and alone, she starts screaming that he'd murdered his friend. He's arrested, tried and convicted, and sentenced to death. But because there is no body, the sentence is commuted to fifteen years hard labor. Some years after he gets out he sees his friend through a restaurant window. He goes in and asks why his friend had not come forward during the trial, to show that he had not been murdered. He did not like his friend's answer, so he hit him with a chair. Then he hit him with some other large heavy things, and ended up killing his friend. Naturally he was arrested. He tried to convince them that he could NOT be arrested for murdering his friend, as he had already been tried and convicted for the murder. To do it again was double jeopardy. The court said that, while they agreed the first conviction was probably a miscarriage of justice, it did not give him leave to kill his friend now. This was a different murder. So they tried him again, convicted him again, sentenced him to death again, and hung him. The hanging didn't take. It's an interesting movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramblin Gambler Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 There was a movie with the same premise a little more recently (as the matlock show, not the cary grant movie). But yeah, it's not the same offense. Assume you robbed a store and were tried and found not guilty. Would you expect to be able to rob that store in the future with impunity? It would be fun to hear a lawyer try to argue the 7th amendment though in that case. " In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. " In the matlock case, a jury would have already tried the fact that the wife was dead. So to convict him of murder the second time, they'd have to first re-examine that fact which is outlawed by the 7th. I know that wouldn't fly, and it would also apply to the person who actually killed her in the show if it did. It could be that the first 4 words carry more meaning than I realize too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 I'm a lawyer and the answer depends on who my client is and how much he can afford to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramblin Gambler Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 59 minutes ago, J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE said: I'm a lawyer and the answer depends on who my client is and how much he can afford to pay. You mean your clients aren't all indigents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpo Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 I figgered he did everything for Sonny. pro Bono Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Pro Bono means you got boned by a professional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramblin Gambler Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 18 hours ago, Alpo said: I figgered he did everything for Sonny. pro Bono it's become apparent to me that "like" is not enough of a response. We also need to add a "groan" Make it happen Admin. If it's easier, just change the text of the like button to groan on all of alpo's posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.