Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Father Terrence who wrote (42169)	6/27/1999 7:58:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Double jeopardy has nothing to do with the same act, but makes it impossible to try a defendant twice for the same crime -- i.e. the identical statutory offense. If one shoots someone else, he may commit murder, and, at the same time, discharge a fire arm within the city limits? That is not a lesser included offense, since in general, it is possible to shoot someone outside of the city limits. A good defense lawyer insists that all possible offenses be pled to, leaving nothing else hanging to permit the state to -- well -- hang his client.

To: Father Terrence who wrote (42169)	6/27/1999 7:59:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

Of course, you cannot always prove "hate" as the motive of a crime, especially in such a hypothetical and highly unlikely case as that of Walter and Albert. But I suspect that many, if not most, such crimes occur in a public and/or group setting, as in the Mitchell-Riddick case, where the facts are easier to establish. As for double jeopardy, I don't think two trials were involved in the Mitchell case; I think it was simply a question of doubling ("enhancing") the sentence of imprisonment. But I don't know. We should consult some of our Thread Lawyers on this point. <g>