PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania man who shot and wounded a police officer more than 41 years ago will stand trial for his murder following the officer’s death last year, a judge ruled on Wednesday.
Prosecutors say the victim, Walter Barclay, died of injuries directly linked to the 1966 shooting.
William Barnes, 71, who already served around 20 years in prison for the shooting and other offenses, was rearrested last year and charged with murder following Barclay’s death.
Prosecutors say a urinary tract infection that afflicted Barclay was a direct result of his paralysis. That in turn was caused when Barnes shot him in the spine during an attempted break-in on November 27, 1966.
Judge Bradley Moss of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas sided with prosecutors, although he noted that he had not found any other case in the United States in which a suspect had been charged with murder so long after causing an injury.
“It seems to me the Commonwealth has met its burden in this matter,“ Moss said after a two-hour hearing. He set a trial date of March 19.
Defense attorney Bobby Hoof said prosecutors failed to prove the police officer had not died from intervening causes between the shooting and his death in August 2007 at age 64.
He argued that Barclay had been involved in two car accidents after the shooting and also fell out of his wheelchair, all of which could have contributed to his death. Continued…
I am all for doing the time for a crime, but I think this may be a little over the edge.
who already served around 20 years in prison for the shooting and other offenses
So, according to these prosecutors, you can get sentenced twice for the same crime.
Even so, since the action that resulted in death took place over 40 years ago, isn’t there a law for the maximum time allowed to prosecute? (without any accusation during that time).
Well double jeopardy is the principle that you can’t be tried twice for the same crime (unless, for instance, vital new evidence comes to life).
It’s common law across the world and is entrenched by the 5th Amendment which says
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb
There are two exceptions to double jeopardy in US law. One, from Harry Aleman v. Judges of the Criminal Division 1998, is that if the the trial is a fraud (this case was to do with a bribed judge) you can be tried again. The other I don’t remember.
This is the same incident - it is not the same crime. You can be charged with more than one crime for the same incident.
He was first sentenced for something (attempted murder or whatever).
Now that the guy has died - he is being tried for a new crime - murder. Happens all the time - though not usually after this long!
That is not double jeopardy.
Also - new evidence does not trump double jeopardy. In the U.S., if you’re found not guilty - you could actually come out and say “I did it” and there’s nothing they can do about it (other than file different charges such as federal civil rights violations, or whatever).
In the UK they can declare a retrial if there’s enough new evidence to cast doubt on the former trial. Not sure about how that might work in the states.
This is an interesting case because it’s the same crime, but charged two different ways. He was charged with the shooting and convicted, now he’s been charged with murder since the guy has died.
Should this be considered a different crime? After all, it is the SAME crime- the shooting. He’s been convicted of it. The death of the victim has meant they’re now charging him seperately with murder. It can be seen both ways.
You wouldn’t get away with it here. A crime is a crime, the Procurator Fiscal decides what to charge you with. If the guy isn’t dead, you won’t be charged with murder, unless maybe he dies between your charge and the trial in which case they’d probably change the charge. But if a guy died 40 years later they’d say you’d paid your debt.
Oh, and they’d say “It’s been 40 years. Get a grip.“
In the UK they can declare a retrial if there’s enough new evidence to cast doubt on the former trial. Not sure about how that might work in the states.
It doesn’t work at all. You simply cannot try the person again after a final verdict has been given by a valid court of law.
For example were police to uncover new evidence conclusively proving the guilt of someone previously acquitted there is little they can do because the defendant may not be tried again.
Let’s say you beat a man up and he falls into a coma. The man is expected to die from his injuries, but it is not known when. You can be charged, tried, and convicted for aggravated assault or even attempted murder and be sent to jail. Two years later the person dies from the injuries you inflicted without ever waking from his coma (thus pretty much ruling out any new injuries). Now you can be retried for murder since the man died as a direct result of the beating you gave him.
You couldn’t be tried for murder the first time because he wasn’t dead yet, and you can’t sit in jail while everyone waits for him to die. You were therefore charged with a lesser crime and convicted (partly as punishment, partly to keep you locked up until the man dies), and now that the victim has finally died you can be charged with the greater crime of murder. There is nothing wrong with this, nor is it unconstitutional. You cannot be tried for the same crime twice, but multiple crimes can be committed during one incident.
The princible is the same in this case even across a span of 40 years. I just wonder how easy it will be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this man’s urinary infection can be linked directly to the shooting. But you can’t say “well, he might have died anyway” because that argument can’t be used in any other murder case - even one regarding terminally ill patients who you *know* are going to die soon. But 40 years is a long time, and even I would have grave doubts about convicting someone of murder in this case. I’d like to hear the prosecution’s argument.
In the UK they can declare a retrial if there’s enough new evidence to cast doubt on the former trial. Not sure about how that might work in the states.
It doesn’t work at all. You simply cannot try the person again after a final verdict has been given by a valid court of law.
For example were police to uncover new evidence conclusively proving the guilt of someone previously acquitted there is little they can do because the defendant may not be tried again.
I’m sorry but yes you can, if vital evidence is discovered, prosecution can lodge an appeal against the acquittal of the defendant in the UK. They can also do this in the event that the court was outwith its jurisdiction or the original trial was somehow flawed or compromised.
Double jeopardy only works on the basis that you cannot be re-tried for the same crime arising from the same facts.
In September 2006, William Dunlop was retried for the murder of Julie Hogg in the 80s, for which he was acquitted in 1991, and successfully convicted thanks to new compelling evidence. Moreover, after the World’s End Murderer was acquitted, the Scottish parliament has been looking into removing double jeopardy, or at least providing exceptions to the rule as mentionned above.
As for double jeopardy in the US, it can be circumvented by prosecuting the defendant under a different jurisdiction. In the Rodney King case, the officers were acquitted by state courts but some were convicted of the same offense in a federal court of law. As far as I’m aware the US is the only place that can do this- state and federal courts can prosecute you for the same crime, nipping around double jeopardy.
In the UK they can declare a retrial if there’s enough new evidence to cast doubt on the former trial. Not sure about how that might work in the states.
It doesn’t work at all. You simply cannot try the person again after a final verdict has been given by a valid court of law.
For example were police to uncover new evidence conclusively proving the guilt of someone previously acquitted there is little they can do because the defendant may not be tried again.
I’m sorry but yes you can, if vital evidence is discovered, prosecution can lodge an appeal against the acquittal of the defendant in the UK.
I have no doubt. Sorry if I worded that strangely, but I was responding to you saying you didn’t know if it worked like that in the states. I think you guys can re-try easier than we can (based on the way it’s written in the US Constitution).
Actually the change of jurisdiction isn’t really a nip-around of double jeopardy since in many cases what is a crime in one jurisdiction isn’t a crime in another. It’s been going on since the very beginning here in the US, and I’m sure even before that since we didn’t invent the idea of double jeopardy.
Generally murder charges are brought by the state against a defendant, and in the case of an acquital then the defendant cannot be charged for that particular crime again by the state. Murder isn’t a federal crime (there isn’t any need since it’s illegal in all states), but charges can be brought against a defendant for other federal crimes committed during the time the original crime was committed. Additionally, if an act is a crime both by state and by federal statutes then a person may be tried by both for the same crime. They usually aren’t, but there are instances where it happens.
