First Murderer - 10 Binary

---

@Stubbs-WH wrote:
What I had disagreed with initially was the two separate crimes bit. Wouldn't attempted murder be a lesser included charge to murder?

The charge for attempted murder consists of; 1) having a weapon. 2) intent to kill the victim.

A murder charge would include those previously mentioned, but with the actual act of killing the victim. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I believe that exonerating the individual of murder would basically clear him/her of the crime, and that trying to get them for one of the lesser included charges to the crime (murder) would constitute double jeopardy, and that a retrial would not be given.

---

If there had been an included attempted murder charge (which I don't think is included in actual murder trials. It's sort of included in the intent to kill that succeeded), it would just be a matter of clearing him of the one charge and seeing what sentence he should serve for the attempted murder charge.

This is definitely a sticky legal question that lawyers could play with for years. Yes, he did commit a crime. However, it was part of the crime we just had to acquit you of. Therefore, from a double jeopardy standpoint it could go either way, and a good lawyer would probably be able to beat the rap.

---

@jpcerutti1 wrote:

No. The only way it would be considered double jeopardy is if they presented the jury with a cascading slate of charges, which they sometimes do, and attempted murder was one of the options the jury could of originally find him guilty of. With a dead guy they usually don't. US law/trials usually only has mention of the weapon used to commit a felony if that will change/worsen the classification (resulting in a harsher sentence) or move the trial jurisdiction to federal court (again, usually harsher sentences). A lot of times they don't bother to add all the minor charges in the trial - since the sentences are almost always concurrent if they were all charges for the same crime (instead of a series of crimes) and there's not a lot gained by tacking on a lot of short concurrent sentences with a longer sentence. If you're acquitted, that becomes an option though.

If you're going to serve, even with parole, more time than you would have gotten for the minor charges there's no point in adding them. 

Really, all of that is moot. If your original judgement is ruled invalid for *any* reason once you've been convicted all you "win" is a new trial. Double jeopardy keeps you from being tried again on the same charges, if you were acquitted, even if there is new evidence. If something like this happened in RL the judgement would be overturned on appeal and the defendant would be granted a new trial, if the prosecutor wished to file charges again - not exonerated. Odds are, the second time around they'd go with attempted murder... but they could still try for murder again as well.

Now, if they acquitted and further digging found he actually did kill him they couldn't try it again because of double jeopardy.🥳

---

actually, as far as i'm aware... not true.
first off, you can't split jointly prosecutable offenses, if you could, an unscrupulous prosecutor could launch endless indictments that don't even have to be legitimate for the purpose of keeping someone in jail without actual cause. and second it violates the defendant's right to a speedy trial. so, if you knowingly don't use it, you lose it.

and this isn't a buffet, you can't decide to prosecute someone for 2nd degree murder, then failing to convict, go for a shot at them with manslaughter for the same incident. that's a big no, no.

---edit
Quoted from textbook
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The double jeopardy clause bars second prosecutions after either acquittal or conviction, and prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense

---edit again

don't know what happened here, but fixed it.

---

@CasperTheLich wrote:

---

@jpcerutti1 wrote:

No. The only way it would be considered double jeopardy is if they presented the jury with a cascading slate of charges, which they sometimes do, and attempted murder was one of the options the jury could of originally find him guilty of. With a dead guy they usually don't. US law/trials usually only has mention of the weapon used to commit a felony if that will change/worsen the classification (resulting in a harsher sentence) or move the trial jurisdiction to federal court (again, usually harsher sentences). A lot of times they don't bother to add all the minor charges in the trial - since the sentences are almost always concurrent if they were all charges for the same crime (instead of a series of crimes) and there's not a lot gained by tacking on a lot of short concurrent sentences with a longer sentence. If you're acquitted, that becomes an option though.

If you're going to serve, even with parole, more time than you would have gotten for the minor charges there's no point in adding them. 

Really, all of that is moot. If your original judgement is ruled invalid for *any* reason once you've been convicted all you "win" is a new trial. Double jeopardy keeps you from being tried again on the same charges, if you were acquitted, even if there is new evidence. If something like this happened in RL the judgement would be overturned on appeal and the defendant would be granted a new trial, if the prosecutor wished to file charges again - not exonerated. Odds are, the second time around they'd go with attempted murder... but they could still try for murder again as well.

Now, if they acquitted and further digging found he actually did kill him they couldn't try it again because of double jeopardy.🥳

---

actually, as far as i'm aware... not true.

first off, you can't split jointly prosecutable offenses, if you could, an unscrupulous prosecutor could launch endless indictments that don't even have to be legitimate for the purpose of keeping someone in jail without actual cause. and second it violates the defendant's right to a speedy trial. so, if you knowingly don't use it, you lose it.

and this isn't a buffet, you can't decide to prosecute someone for 2nd degree murder, then failing to convict, go for a shot at them with manslaughter for the same incident. that's a big no, no.

---

I agree......

But in this case, I look at it being more under Martial Law, and thus Tann's law more than anything close to US or European Law.  I kinda feel since it is in a life or death situation with lack of elected officials and armed rebellion going on, the laws are pretty much what Tann and maybe the other top people on the Nexus says it is.  Not the best idea, but it is what it is, which is one reason why I always just boot his butt off the station.  I can't see letting someone stay there who has proven he will shoot people in the back if he doesn't like what they are doing.  The very minimum I want from an ally in battle is that they will be shooting at the same type of enemies that I am shooting at......and not shooting my allies/friends/people.....

In Scotland we tend to do away with double jeapody rulings, people are found either guilty, innocent or not proven.

In the latter case, if new evidence is found.. you can be brought back to trial.  But not proven is usually only used, when they know you did it, just can't prove it.  It's also often a prosecutors way of ditching a case.. and not wasting money on a court.  People found not proven often take themselves to court, to get an innocent verdict and sometimes end up in jail.. as found guilty..

In the case of "that movie" which is just a movie btw.. you'd still end up in jail for murder the second time around.  You'd just be aquitted of the first wrong conviction.  And probably compensated and get a shorter sentence.. but you'd still goto prison.

In the case of Nexus Law.. it comes across to me as standard emergency law.. which is akin to military law under a national emergency.. where basic rights go out the window.  The lack of an enforcing body, essentially means whoever has the power, decides the fate based on whatever evidence is to hand.  When Ryder points out the entire truth of the case.  Then Ryder decides his fate.. Exile for Attempted Murder with Intent to kill.  Or Released.. on a technicality.  Since he actually missed. 

But it's certainly true that he did commit a crime, he did intend to murder, made a choice to do so.   That said, he would also have saved everyones lives if he had done so.. mitigating enough? Maybe.