A legal query.
Jun. 14th, 2007 09:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkingI've got two questions for the lawyers in the audience, because I know how good Movie Law is especially on things like Double Jeopardy.
#1: A man is acquitted of the attempted murder of his wife, on the grounds of lack of evidence. She is on life support - after his acquittal, he naturally regains the power to order her medical care terminated, and does so. New, admissible evidence surfaces that conclusively proves his guilt. He is charged again, this time with murder instead of attempted murder. The movie explains this end-run around the rules of Double Jeopardy by arguing that his pulling the plug was a new act that, since they could now prove he shot her originally, counted as murder.
Is this possible?
#2: At a trial, all the really damning evidence gets excluded. The trial is recessed, and the prosecutor is given "until we resume on Monday" to come up with "new evidence". He is told this, in front of the jury. He walks into the courtroom on Monday, is asked if he has new evidence, and neither the judge nor the defendant know what answer he will give until he answers the question. He answers this question in front of the jury.
Doesn't that, like, TOTALLY defeat the purpose of discovery, and prejudice the jury? Shouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial or at least an appeal of a future conviction, on the spot?
If you've seen Fracture, or if you don't care to see Fracture, please enlighten a poor Canadian layman on the merits, here, because those two bits don't seem to make sense. It happens in California, if that matters.
#1: A man is acquitted of the attempted murder of his wife, on the grounds of lack of evidence. She is on life support - after his acquittal, he naturally regains the power to order her medical care terminated, and does so. New, admissible evidence surfaces that conclusively proves his guilt. He is charged again, this time with murder instead of attempted murder. The movie explains this end-run around the rules of Double Jeopardy by arguing that his pulling the plug was a new act that, since they could now prove he shot her originally, counted as murder.
Is this possible?
#2: At a trial, all the really damning evidence gets excluded. The trial is recessed, and the prosecutor is given "until we resume on Monday" to come up with "new evidence". He is told this, in front of the jury. He walks into the courtroom on Monday, is asked if he has new evidence, and neither the judge nor the defendant know what answer he will give until he answers the question. He answers this question in front of the jury.
Doesn't that, like, TOTALLY defeat the purpose of discovery, and prejudice the jury? Shouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial or at least an appeal of a future conviction, on the spot?
If you've seen Fracture, or if you don't care to see Fracture, please enlighten a poor Canadian layman on the merits, here, because those two bits don't seem to make sense. It happens in California, if that matters.