Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, thank you! Oh boy, this guy sounds like a winner:
Quote:
Matthew Plas pleaded guilty to attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, attempted rape, gross sexual imposition, tampering with evidence, having a gun after a felony conviction and carrying a concealed weapon.
I am not an attorney, so I guess I just have questions. He has been tried for the crime he committed. How could he be tried again for the same crime? It might be state law allows this. But if he was tried for his actions, which did not result in this woman’s death, how could be trued again fir the same actions?
I am not an attorney, so I guess I just have questions. He has been tried for the crime he committed. How could he be tried again for the same crime? It might be state law allows this. But if he was tried for his actions, which did not result in this woman’s death, how could be trued again fir the same actions?
Is that double jeopardy? Anyone know?
The Thomas case probably is relevant to Plas (topic). No double jeopardy.
Carpenter discusses if the defendant took a plea bargain and the State did not include any provision for any later charge of murder, then he can not be tried for murder.
In the topic case it is apparant the state offered no such provision as they are considering a charge, but that may be they are deeply researching the law and his previous trial record and or any agreement if made.
I understand principles of federalism good, also the meaning of "trier of fact". Most jurisdictions have abolished the "year and a day rule". The D.C. Court of Appeals abolished it in 1987, however the U.S. Surpeme Court decision in the 1896 Ball case still stands and the rule is permitted, therefore each jurisdiction has discretion on the matter.
I think not.
First, the holding in Ball is about double jeopardy, not the "year and a day rule."
Second, the fact that the Supreme Court mentions the "year and a day rule" does not make the holding in Ball about the "year and a day rule." In fact, the Supreme Court never addressed the "year and a day rule" in Ball, because it was not at issue.
Third, Ball was initially acquitted, not only of murder, but of all lesser charges as well.
Finally, Ball is not on point, precisely because Ball was acquitted of murder and all lesser charges.
If you had a clue, then you'd know...
Held: The Tennessee Supreme Court's retroactive application to petitioner of its decision abolishing the year and a day rule did not deny petitioner due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-15
Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 453, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001)
Rogers is precisely on point.
Rogers stabbed James Bowdrey who died 15 months later of his wounds in a comatose condition.
Rogers tried to invoke the "year and a day rule" but every court in Tennessee rejected it, then the US Supreme Court not only rejected it, but said the retroactive application did not violate the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause.
That was 2001 and more than a century after your lame Ball case.
In legal terms, it's called sub silentio.
If you claim Ball is about the "year and a day rule" then the US Supreme Court in 2001 over-turned Ball sub silentio.
You need to bring your legal skills up to speed and learn how to Shepardize.
Was Matthew Plas acquitted? No, he plead guilty, so Ball isn't even applicable here to double jeopardy and only someone so unfamiliar with the legal process and the law would even bring it up.
You have also apparently confused pleading guilty with a plea bargain. They are two totally different things.
A defendant may plead guilty, not guilty, no contest, enter an "Alford plea" (in some States), or enter a plea of guilty pursuant to the terms of plea agreement (aka a "plea bargain").
If Plas plead guilty, then the charge of attempted murder can be amended to murder and Plas' sentence can be amended to life in prison or possibly death, since Ohio has the death penalty and even more so since this crime was particularly brutal and heinous. To do that in Ohio, they just need to seat a jury for sentencing and the jury will recommend death or not.
If Plas plead guilty in accordance with the terms of a plea agreement, then hopefully Plas' attorney was smart enough to make sure the death penalty was off the table, and hopefully the prosecutor was smart enough to make sure the charge could be amended.
Are there any states that currently follow the year and a day rule? If you say NO, you are wrong.
Shepardize? The internet can do all that. Don't tell me you "Shepardized" your answers. Ha! That is such a joke! You are the one who needs to up their legal skills pal.
Obviously Ohio does not follow the "year and a day rule", but after 11 + years!! Can medical science determine that? Should it even be considered for a possible murder charge?
I'm glad they found him and locked him up. Law enforcement should review rape, murder, abduction cases and missing girls/ women cases in his area. It would not surprise me to hear there are more cases committed by him. Matthew was 25 when he assaulted her. I doubt she was his 1st.
There is a similar case in Michigan where the guy, Dennis Bowman forced a girl into the woods. He had a gun and shot at her a few times, missing. In the end, she was lucky, she got away. They found him, but didn't lock him up. At one point he was supposed to be in court but they rescheduled it because had to go to Virginia for 2 weeks to do something with the Navy. When he got back, he was locked up for almost 6 years.
Fast forward to November 2019. Law enforcement in Virginia were looking for a man that raped and brutally murdered a woman named Kathleen O'Brien Doyle. We're assuming they had DNA from the rape kit that was done on Kathleen. Dennis Bowman was that man that was arrested.
Dennis Bowman and his wife adopted my friend Cathy's daughter Alexis in 1975. About 2010, my friend found out that her daughter was missing when the adoption agency contacted her with "news" about Alexis. After she spoke to them, they would not tell her what her daughters adopted name was, all they said was she was missing since age 14 in Michigan. My friends husband found her case; Aundria M. Bowman, missing since March 11, 1989. Cathy called Michigan LE who told her they really messed up Alexis's case and that they believed the adoptive father killed her daughter. They told her that he was a sexual predator and that she went missing after accusing Dennis of sexual abuse. Dennis told LE that Alexis stole $100 from him and ran away.
Cathy found out that Dennis was arrested again in 1998 after Alexis went missing. He was found breaking into a co-workers house; he had a "rape kit" with him; LE also found he had a sawed off shotgun. Some how Dennis was able to not serve any time with this case; one "excuse" he used was that he was the father of 2 daughters; he failed to mention that one had been missing...
Cathy runs a FB page for Alexis. A few years ago, a woman contacted the page saying she was abducted when she was 6 years old; it happened 6 months after Alexis went missing. The woman helped LE make a sketch and when put next to Dennis's mug shot from 1980, it sure resembles him.
Obviously Ohio does not follow the "year and a day rule", but after 11 + years!! Can medical science determine that? Should it even be considered for a possible murder charge?
Without discussing the specifics of this case and instead the general law approach to raising a charge long after the fact. If we use a simple example of a bullet that cannot be surgically removed and all know it will eventually kill the victim. Lets say the facts are clear. The defendant admits he/she hated the victim, went out and bought a gun with the only purpose being to kill the victim. he/she shot the victim but due to a freak of physics, the bullet became lodged in the person's body in such a way that surgery to remove it would kill the victim and that every doctor in the world said that eventually the bullet would move and once it did the person would die.
Now the defendant was convicted of attempted murder, assault, illegal use of a gun ... They could not be charged with murder because a requirement of the crime is the death of the victim. they served 20 years in prison for the crimes. Had murder been included, they likely would have gotten life without parole in this example. So when the victim dies, the crime of murder is now available. Just because it took 21 years for the bullet to do what was intended does not mean a thing. Murder was finally accomplished. Of course they can charge the perpetrator with murder now.
It is up to each one of the 50 State legislatures, and also the federal government for its statutes on murder when it has jurisdiction, and the US military under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to define "murder" and establish the elements of proof to sustain a conviction.
Whether the injuries suffered in the attack did or did not ultimately result in death is a matter for the trier of facts to decide.
You know, it might help if you actually understood the principles of federalism and how your country works.
I'm guessing you probably don't understand the meaning of "trier of facts," either. That would be a judge, a panel of judges or a jury as the defendant requests.
No, they aren't bound by common law but it does form the backbone of most state and our federal legal system, to one extent or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne
Oh, I agree with what you've said, and no, I'm not confusing moral and legal judgement. I was simply saying that punishment based on outcome is not a perfectly logical system, as the case OP posted shows. There is no logic to be found in increasing this shooter's jail time after 11 years, especially considering that the shooting may never be proven to be the direct cause death 11 years later.
FWIW, punishment isn't exclusively based on outcome. Judges have latitude considering the depravity and brutality of a case. The perpetrator in the case highlighted was sentenced to 33 years...that was the result of a plea bargain. I don't know what the state statutes are in OH, but many places have latitude on sentencing. Theoretically, a murder charge could allow for less time in prison than the man in question was sentenced to. And it isn't certain if 33 years is when he'll be released, or eligible to go before a parole board whose likely to rubber stamp a denial quickly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
