Double Jeopardy

[Caper]

I just have a question about Double Jeopardy. I read on another thread and heard in the media, that basically Casey Anthony could admit tommorow that she murdered her daughter and never be charged. My question is. Has something like that ever happened in American history?

Actually one more quick question (I don't want to start another topic). This may have more to do with Canadian law but may apply to American law as well. We had a case in my province about 10 years back. Basically a guy was found with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ecstasy in his car, after he got in an accident. They threw the case out after they found out the cop illegally searched his car. My question here is. What if it wasn't drugs they found....but instead videos of say three missing kids, where he murders them in the video. Would the same rules apply in that situation?

 

[dtugg]

I just have a question about Double Jeopardy. I read on another thread and heard in the media, that basically Casey Anthony could admit tommorow that she murdered her daughter and never be charged.

Correct.

My question is. Has something like that ever happened in American history?

OJ Simpson basically admitted to it by writing a book entitled "If I Did It," which describes how he "would have" brutally murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, "if" he had done it.

I am sure there are other cases, but I can't think of any.

Actually one more quick question (I don't want to start another topic). This may have more to do with Canadian law but may apply to American law as well. We had a case in my province about 10 years back. Basically a guy was found with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ecstasy in his car, after he got in an accident. They threw the case out after they found out the cop illegally searched his car. My question here is. What if it wasn't drugs they found....but instead videos of say three missing kids, where he murders them in the video. Would the same rules apply in that situation?

I know nothing about Canada law, but in the USA it doesn't matter what they found. If the search is illegal, everything gained from it is thrown out. It could be cut up body parts, it wouldn't really matter. If they were able to get other evidence, I am sure the case could go forward though.

 

[BStrong]

I just have a question about Double Jeopardy. I read on another thread and heard in the media, that basically Casey Anthony could admit tommorow that she murdered her daughter and never be charged. My question is. Has something like that ever happened in American history?

Actually one more quick question (I don't want to start another topic). This may have more to do with Canadian law but may apply to American law as well. We had a case in my province about 10 years back. Basically a guy was found with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ecstasy in his car, after he got in an accident. They threw the case out after they found out the cop illegally searched his car. My question here is. What if it wasn't drugs they found....but instead videos of say three missing kids, where he murders them in the video. Would the same rules apply in that situation?

IANAL, but I'll put in my .02

Bill Ayers - in his words - "Guilty as sin, free as a bird."

Your hypothetical example is extreme, but if a search was determined to be illegal, any evidence siezed in that search would be excluded. If that evidence was the sole basis for the arrest and prosecution, the case would have to be dropped.

That would not preclude LE from pursuing the case using other lawful means to develope evidence.

If a case, as the Anthony case did, results in a finding of not guilty, that case could not be prosecuted a second time.

There is one exception to this, and an example of such a case is the officers in the Rodney King beating - innocent of state charges, convicted on federal charges of violating Kings' civil rights.

 

[Lowpro]

even if she admitted to murdering her daughter but didn't plead guilty, there'd still be a trial I think. Admitting murder without evidence to prove it means no matter how much you wanna admit murder, you didn't commit murder.

So yes double jeopardy protects her from another trial, but whether she admits murder doesn't implicate her (much) in reality anyways. I'm sure if she did BEFORE her trial the trial would not have swung as it did however.

As for illegal search and seizure yes the evidence would have to be thrown out. However if say there were videos of him chopping up the people, they cannot use the video as evidence, but I'm sure if they investigated the video they'd find leads on the case itself. The videotape will not be permitted in the case I think, but you can still glean off it in an investigation.

So say the man who got searched for the drugs illegally, yes he's off the hook as far as possession goes but if the police have any wits they'll get a legal warrant to search his house for the drugs maybe. Assuming he has that quantity of drugs, he must be keeping more somewhere else or so the logic follows.

Anyone wanna correct me on this? I know KingMerv is quite apt with legal mumbojumbo.

 

[Caper]

Your hypothetical example is extreme, but if a search was determined to be illegal, any evidence siezed in that search would be excluded. If that evidence was the sole basis for the arrest and prosecution, the case would have to be dropped.

Thanks for the reply. I like to take my example to the extreme.... Though I will say the pediatrician case in Delaware could have been an example. I think he was convicted almost alone on the video tapes he made...... Actually lets use that guy. His lawyers are appealing his case right now based on the tapes being illegally seized. If you never heard of the guy here is his story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Bradley

I don't know if the tapes were seized illegally. They might have been... and lets say they were. And lets also assume that, the tapes were the ONLY evidence. Kids were to young to remember or testify, no prior suspicions or complaints (in actuality there were both). Nothing..........just the tapes. For alot of people, it wouldn't matter........... if that's all they got, then the case must be thrown out. But that doesn't sit well with me at all. To me the moral thing to do... the right thing to do.... in this extreme case.... is for the judge to rule the search legal and the evidence admissible.... and if they did... well someone just has to shoot the guy in the face.... and then everyone pretend they didn't see it.

 

[Ray Brady]

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that double-jeopardy protects you from being tried for the same charge. If she were to confess, I believe the prosecutors would be free to pursue a lesser charge, even if that were only something like perjury or contempt of court.

 

[Ray Brady]

I don't know if the tapes were seized illegally. They might have been... and lets say they were. And lets also assume that, the tapes were the ONLY evidence.... But that doesn't sit well with me at all.

To be fair, you're essentially getting upset over your own hypothetical example. There are ways of getting evidence included even if it's the result of an illegal search. "Inevitable discovery" is the first that comes to mind.

 

[Caper]

As for illegal search and seizure yes the evidence would have to be thrown out. However if say there were videos of him chopping up the people, they cannot use the video as evidence, but I'm sure if they investigated the video they'd find leads on the case itself. The videotape will not be permitted in the case I think, but you can still glean off it in an investigation.

Thanks for the reply. But remember, this is my hypothetical. And in my hypothetical there is NO other evidence. No other lines of investigation produce anything. Basically I want to back you, me or anyone else into a corner and say "yeah, they would have to throw the whole case out". "They would have to let go a multiple child murderer and torturer, if this scenario ever came to be.

IMO, if ever such a case came to be. There would be no judge in the country that would throw out the evidence, no matter how obvious the infraction...... and to me....... that would be OK.

 

[Caper]

To be fair, you're essentially getting upset over your own hypothetical example. There are ways of getting evidence included even if it's the result of an illegal search. "Inevitable discovery" is the first that comes to mind.

Thank you. I think that is what I am looking for. That solves alot for me... I will sleep better tonight.

 

[LashL]

Actually one more quick question (I don't want to start another topic). This may have more to do with Canadian law but may apply to American law as well. We had a case in my province about 10 years back. Basically a guy was found with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ecstasy in his car, after he got in an accident. They threw the case out after they found out the cop illegally searched his car. My question here is. What if it wasn't drugs they found....but instead videos of say three missing kids, where he murders them in the video. Would the same rules apply in that situation?

In Canada, the analysis as to the admissibility or exclusion of evidence in a case in which a search may have been conducted in a manner that was a breach of section 8 of the Charter is a multi-pronged analysis. If a search is deemed to have been unreasonable under the section 8 analysis, then an analysis is conducted by the court pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, and there are a series of cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada that are binding on all other courts in the land with respect to how that analysis is to be carried out.

Essentially, the court - even if a search is deemed unreasonable under section 8 - goes on to conduct the analysis under section 24(2) and they consider the seriousness of the breach (some are considered less serious than others and I won't bore you with the whole conscriptive vs. non-conscriptive evidence ), the impact on the accused if the evidence is admitted, and the impact on the administration of justice if the evidence is admitted (or excluded). It often comes down to that last factor, and the question that needs to be answered by the court in determining whether to admit or exclude the evidence that arose from the impugned search is whether the admission (or exclusion) of the evidence would "bring the administration of justice into disrepute".

What they mean by that last bit is whether the admission (or exclusion) of the evidence in the circumstances (i.e., in light of the Charter breach under section 8) would result in the reputation of the justice system being undermined in the mind of a reasonable and dispassionate person, fully apprised of the facts.

So, it's not as cut and dried here, as it might be in the U.S. with its "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine. And, like most things in Canadian law, it ebbs and flows. Sometimes (it seems) the pendulum swings too far to one extreme so things eventually get 'corrected' by a timely SCC judgment that makes incremental changes to things to try to reverse the ebb or flow of the day. It keeps things interesting, anyway.

But to answer your hypothetical question, I would hazard a guess that if the fellow had a car accident and an incidental (but later deemed unconstitutional) search of his vehicle turned up evidence of him murdering three missing children, the court would find that excluding that evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so it would be deemed admissible under 24(2).

 

[Loss Leader]

I just have a question about Double Jeopardy. I read on another thread and heard in the media, that basically Casey Anthony could admit tommorow that she murdered her daughter and never be charged. My question is. Has something like that ever happened in American history?

As said, OJ Simpson is the best example. There are lots of examples that we don't know about, however. People have been given transactional immunity and admitted all sorts of things that they could then never be charged for. In order to make a case against mob bosses, the feds have literally let people get away with murder.

My question here is. What if it wasn't drugs they found....but instead videos of say three missing kids, where he murders them in the video. Would the same rules apply in that situation?

The rules would apply in that the videos and any confession they got afterwards would be unavailable at trial. However, police would be free to develop other evidence. Once they know the perp, they can look into where he was, the connection he had to the children, what neighbors saw, and more. Eventually they could get a warrant based on that information and run his credit cards, dig up his yard, and send every piece of clothing he has for testing. They'd find a way to get him.

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that double-jeopardy protects you from being tried for the same charge. If she were to confess, I believe the prosecutors would be free to pursue a lesser charge, even if that were only something like perjury or contempt of court.

She can't be tried for perjury because she didn't testify. She can't be tried for contempt because a person has a right to plead not guilty and make the state prove its case. She can't be tried for a lesser included offense because that's still double jeopardy. She could be tried for giving false statements to the police ... except she's already been convicted of that.

I suppose somebody would have to think up something - a civil rights violation or crossing state lines with the intent of committing a felony or something. But it would never be as good as murder. The only way to get Anthony is the same way they eventually got OJ - just wait for them to commit another crime.


IANACDL but IAAL

ETA: I'm not a lawyer in Canada, either. So, I adopt whatever LashL said as though it were my own statement made herein.

 

[Lowpro]

Thanks for the reply. But remember, this is my hypothetical. And in my hypothetical there is NO other evidence. No other lines of investigation produce anything. Basically I want to back you, me or anyone else into a corner and say "yeah, they would have to throw the whole case out". "They would have to let go a multiple child murderer and torturer, if this scenario ever came to be.

IMO, if ever such a case came to be. There would be no judge in the country that would throw out the evidence, no matter how obvious the infraction...... and to me....... that would be OK.

Well your hypothetical doesn't reflect reality well enough to be a valid hypothetical then and you should abandon it =P

 

[Loss Leader]

the court would find that excluding that evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so it would be deemed admissible under 24(2).

I can't argue with your knowledge of Canadian law but really? Excluding the evidence would bring disrepute to the state MORE than treating people differently based on how one feels about them before they've ever been convicted of anything? It's more disreputable to uphold equal protection under the law than it is to throw away your values about civil rights the first time it looks like it might be inconvenient? What if the guy were a Muslim and the police were looking for evidence he was a terrorist without any reason other than his religion? Would Canada decide that profiling of an entire 1.4 billion member religion was more disreputable than excluding three home movies from evidence?

I don't doubt you. I just have a hard time believing it.

However, it does make me feel better about refusing to give my Canadian mother-in-law legal advice what on account of my clearly having no idea what you people do and do not value up there.

 

[Loss Leader]

Basically I want to back you, me or anyone else into a corner and say "yeah, they would have to throw the whole case out". "They would have to let go a multiple child murderer and torturer, if this scenario ever came to be.

In that (impossible) situation, yeah, they would have to throw the whole case out. As for the politics of it, maybe the trial judge would rule the tapes admissible and then the Court of Appeals could overturn him in an unsigned decision. That way, no one person would bear the political fallout.

 

[Ray Brady]

She can't be tried for perjury because she didn't testify.

Has anyone ever tried to argue that the "Not Guilty" plea in and of itself constitutes testimony? If you can demonstrate that she knew her plea was false, could that in and of itself be grounds for a perjury charge?

 

[Lowpro]

No a plea is part of procedure it in no way effects their testimony or trial other than for the sake of procedure.

 

[LashL]

I can't argue with your knowledge of Canadian law but really? Excluding the evidence would bring disrepute to the state MORE than treating people differently based on how one feels about them before they've ever been convicted of anything? It's more disreputable to uphold equal protection under the law than it is to throw away your values about civil rights the first time it looks like it might be inconvenient?

That's not the hypothetical we're dealing with, though, and my response was, of course, based on the limited information in the hypothetical presented. I took it to be describing a search incidental to a car accident, perhaps while locking up the car before the tow and seeing the drugs in the car, or something along that line. I didn't get anything out of the proposed hypothetical about the police treating the fellow differently based on how they feel about them, etc. Thus, my view that the breach would be deemed to be not very serious on the sliding scale of serious breaches (yes, there's a sliding scale here about the seriousness of the breach, as I mentioned above. Not all breaches are considered equally 'serious' for purposes of the section 24(2) analysis).

What if the guy were a Muslim and the police were looking for evidence he was a terrorist without any reason other than his religion? Would Canada decide that profiling of an entire 1.4 billion member religion was more disreputable than excluding three home movies from evidence?

I didn't get anything like that out of the hypothetical presented by the OP; he proposed a hypothetical in which the fellow was in a car accident, not being profiled or anything, and the search he mentioned sounded rather incidental to the car accident. In your hypothetical, though, a search based strictly on the fellow's religion would most certainly be considered a more serious breach, so the result might (just might, mind you) be different. It's amazing what judges can come up with when they want to justify a particular result. And finding home videos of someone murdering three missing children would pretty much be the top of the scale here. I doubt that many judges at first instance here would exclude it, unless the fellow wasn't read his 10(a) and 10(b) rights to counsel (which is considered a more serious breach than an incidental search after a car accident ETA: if the breach of 10(a) and (b) results in conscriptive inculpatory evidence).

However, it does make me feel better about refusing to give my Canadian mother-in-law legal advice what on account of my clearly having no idea what you people do and do not value up there.

Always a wise decision, that.


ETA: I should add that in the early days of SCC decisions about section 24(2) of the Charter, circa 1987, the last prong of the test only considered whether the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The later addition of also having to consider whether the exclusion of evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute came much later (circa 2003 if memory serves correctly). That's one of the examples of the pendulum swinging too far in one direction and the court making 'incremental changes' to 'correct' same, which I alluded to in my previous post.

 

[Loss Leader]

In your hypothetical, though, a search based strictly on the fellow's religion would most certainly be considered a more serious breach, so the result might (just might, mind you) be different.

Well, good for that. I'd begun to worry that all the snow and moose meat had you people coming unhinged.

 

[Alt+F4]

I just have a question about Double Jeopardy. I read on another thread and heard in the media, that basically Casey Anthony could admit tommorow that she murdered her daughter and never be charged. My question is. Has something like that ever happened in American history?

Yes, it has happened. After being found not guility, the two men that murdered teenager Emmett Till confessed to the crime in an interview with a magazine - and were paid $3,000.

 

[Alt+F4]

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that double-jeopardy protects you from being tried for the same charge. If she were to confess, I believe the prosecutors would be free to pursue a lesser charge, even if that were only something like perjury or contempt of court.

Yes, same charge is the key phrase here. In the Rodney King beating incident four police officers were found not guilty of excessive force in a state trial. Later all four were charged in a federal case with violation of King's civil rights. Two were convicted.