Any lawyers wanna help me settle a bet?

[SkyHog]

Ok - my brother and law were arguing over something. Crazy enough, I then saw it on an episode of Matlock. I'll skip who said what to avoid the possiblility of favortism.

A man is tried and convicted for murdering his wife. There was no evidence left behind except a cloudy bathtub filled with acid.

The man is sentenced to 30 years behind bars, which he dutifully does, and is never offered or denied parole.

He gets out 30 years later and starts to piece his life together again. His wife returns and explains that she feels guilty because she faked her own death, and assumed a new identity while he rotted in prison. In sheer outrage, the man murders his wife.

Can he be tried again? One of us says that he was already convicted of murdering his wife, therefore it would be double jeopardy. The other one of us says that its a different crime with a different motive and presumably a different weapon.

 

[Dean]

Double jeopardy, he can not be tried again.

 

[Richard]

Was he or his wife on a treadmill?

 

[jesse]

although that was a good movie.

i *highly* doubt it would play out like that. the public would be in an OUTRAGE.

 

[SkyHog]

although that was a good movie.

i *highly* doubt it would play out like that. the public would be in an OUTRAGE.

ooh - there's a movie like that....I might have to see it.

Lemme guess, its called "Double Jeopardy?"

 

[jesse]

Lemme guess, its called "Double Jeopardy?"

 

[Henning]

His wife returns and explains that she feels guilty because she faked her own death, and assumed a new identity while he rotted in prison. In sheer outrage, the man murders his wife.

Can he be tried again? One of us says that he was already convicted of murdering his wife, therefore it would be double jeopardy. The other one of us says that its a different crime with a different motive and presumably a different weapon.

Hmmmmmmm......... Real life? I think he gets a no bill from the Grand Jury if the DA wants to pursue it.

If it was real, it wouldn't be murder anyway unless he KNEW she was alive and deliberately screwing him over and brooded over it for 30 yrs. In TX it would probably be considered "Justifiable Homocide" under the "He paid for it up front" combined with the "Well she had that comin to her" and "Yep Dang right," clauses.

In reality you are very right, they are 2 very different crimes. Dude snapped, 30 years hard time when you didn't do it??? Yeeaahhh.....

'Nother factor, what liability does the prosecuters office and law enforcement play into this? Usually (yes there are exceptions) prosecuters don't try major crimes without real evidence, and that's a good thing. In a case like this, I could see him suing the DAs office as well as the police, because with a bathtub of acid to convict on murder would require some real prosecutorial hanky panky.

 

[igottafly]

Not a lawyer, but watched Perry Mason every week as a youth.

If the law does not allow for murder charges due to double jeopardy
I would think enough other laws would be violated if He were to kill her.
Aggravated assault
assault and battery
assault w/ intent to cause death/injury
if a gun were used, weapons charges could be faced (ex con)
parole violation
Hate crime...I'd hate her too
Civil rights violations
and I am sure that an enterprising DA could come up with more.

 

[Carol]

....In TX it would probably be considered "Justifiable Homocide" under the "He paid for it up front" combined with the "Well she had that comin to her" and "Yep Dang right," clauses....

Or, as they say in SC, "he needed killin'"

 

[inav8r]

Can he be tried again? One of us says that he was already convicted of murdering his wife, therefore it would be double jeopardy. The other one of us says that its a different crime with a different motive and presumably a different weapon.

Actually, it's not double jeopardy because he's being tried for a DIFFERENT offense of murder.

When the movie Double Jeopardy (1999) came out one of the morning news shows had a lawer on to explain that the movie stretched the law and it was certainly not consistent with how it would play out in the real world.

 

[EdFred]

If I was a judge, and the jury found him guilty of the "second" murder, I would just sentence him to time served.

 

[Henning]

Or, as they say in SC, "he needed killin'"

It's a stretch for that statute, she would have had to had more bad acts in the interveening time.

 

[poadeleted20]

They ran this scenario on Law & Order a few years ago. IIRC, it's not double jeopardy for the reasons Mike stated (not the same crime), but the guy has a great case for a civil suit against the state for the first conviction and the 30 years in the pen -- though the money may not do him much good while he's serving time for the real murder.

 

[AdamZ]

My unabashed legal opinon is that Nick watches too much TV