Acquitted Murder Suspect Confesses (Nothing can be done)

From the Article:

A central Vermont man who was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal 2002 shooting of a co-worker outside a pizza restaurant in Waitsfield called police and confessed to the crime last month — but there's nothing state authorities say they can do about it.

A Washington County jury in 2004 found Isaac Turnbaugh of Randolph not guilty of first-degree murder in the killing of Declan Lyons, 24, of Montpelier as he stirred a pot of sauce outside the American Flatbread Co.

In July, Turnbaugh, now 28, called Randolph police and said he shot Lyons in the head with a rifle and wished to surrender to authorities, according to a sworn law-enforcement account of what happened.

----------------------------------------------

Despite Turnbaugh's alleged admission to the Lyons murder, the state has few options, Attorney General William Sorrell said Monday. His office prosecuted the murder charge against Turnbaugh, who was 18 and living in Moretown at the time of the slaying.

"You only get one bite of the apple. It's double jeopardy," Sorrell said, referring to the legal doctrine that says a defendant can be put on trial for a crime only once. After an acquittal, Sorrell added, "You can go out on the courthouse steps and confess, and the state can't do anything."

Link to Full Article HERE

:|

the justice system strikes again

The family should sue, the state did a really bad job if they could not convit him.

Horay for Justice!

He could always murder someone else, and then turn himself in...Sure he wouldn't be doing time for his first murder, but he would be charged for the second murder which would probably land him in jail for the rest of his life...justice would then be served... / sarcasm obviously.

:|

the justice system strikes again

Sword-Demon

From the Article:

A central Vermont man who was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal 2002 shooting of a co-worker outside a pizza restaurant in Waitsfield called police and confessed to the crime last month — but there's nothing state authorities say they can do about it.

A Washington County jury in 2004 found Isaac Turnbaugh of Randolph not guilty of first-degree murder in the killing of Declan Lyons, 24, of Montpelier as he stirred a pot of sauce outside the American Flatbread Co.

In July, Turnbaugh, now 28, called Randolph police and said he shot Lyons in the head with a rifle and wished to surrender to authorities, according to a sworn law-enforcement account of what happened.

----------------------------------------------

Despite Turnbaugh's alleged admission to the Lyons murder, the state has few options, Attorney General William Sorrell said Monday. His office prosecuted the murder charge against Turnbaugh, who was 18 and living in Moretown at the time of the slaying.

"You only get one bite of the apple. It's double jeopardy," Sorrell said, referring to the legal doctrine that says a defendant can be put on trial for a crime only once. After an acquittal, Sorrell added, "You can go out on the courthouse steps and confess, and the state can't do anything."

Link to Full Article HERE

Planet_Pluto

So charge him with a federal crime.

Law and Order at it's finest.

Perjury charges do not make up for it. But they do help.Zeviander

The family can sue him in civil court....and they'd win thanks to his confession.LJS9502_basic

People always yell sue but you can't get blood from a turnip.

Little known fact that there is no double jeopardy law in Canada, they would just charge him again and that would be that.

What I don't understand is how a post-acquittal confessor can't be jailed anyway.

He can't be TRIED for the same crime twice. BUT, if he confesses, there is no need for a trial, correct?

He should just go right to the sentencing phase of the legal system since he's admitting he committed a murder.

That's where Double-Jeopardy needs to be amended IMO.

What I don't understand is how a post-aquittal confessor can't be jailed anyway.

He can't be TRIED for the same crime twice. BUT, if he confesses, there is no need for a trial, correct?

He should just go right to the sentencing phase of the legal system sinec he's admitting he committed a murder.

That's where Double-Jeopardy needs to be amended IMO.

Netherscourge

:|

the justice system strikes again

Sword-Demon

:| So you would rather have a government that can imprison you even if not enough evidence is provided? Or one that can violate double jeopardy to charge you and try you as many times as possible on the same criminal charge until they get the guilty decision they are looking for?

Little known fact that there is no double jeopardy law in Canada, they would just charge him again and that would be that.

DarthSatan

Better known fact: the Double Jeopardy Clause is enshrined in the Constitution. So were any state to attempt to prosecute someone for the same crime after being aquitted they would be in violation of the Constitution.

The president could let him be punished. You don't need a trial or so in the USA I think since the Prosecution Act of 2010? LJSBasic do you know more about that? It's what I heard somewhere but I'm not sure whether it was made law. I heard he can detain people indefinitely.

The president could let him be punished. You don't need a trial or so in the USA I think since the Prosecution Act of 2010? LJSBasic do you know more about that? It's what I heard somewhere but I'm not sure whether it was made law. I heard he can detain people indefinitely.

KungfuKitten

No, no, no. First off, that bill has yet to pass, and thus is not law. Secondly, it has some serious Constitutional issues. Thirdly, even if it were passed it only applies to cases of suspected terrorism against the United States and/or its allies. A simple murder case would not qualify here.

What if a new plaintiff shows up and they try the man because the plaintiff from the case in which he has been acquitted for is different, like, a different family is suing the man instead of the family from before, would that make it double jeopardy? Or it's all the same since it has to be through public prosecution?

Perjury charges do not make up for it. But they do help.Zeviander

What if a new plaintiff shows up and they try the man because the plaintiff from the case in which he has been acquitted for is different, like, a different family is suing the man instead of the family from before, would that make it double jeopardy? Or it's all the same since it has to be through public prosecution?

gamingqueen

I think you're confusing criminal law with civil law.

The president could let him be punished. You don't need a trial or so in the USA I think since the Prosecution Act of 2010? LJSBasic do you know more about that? It's what I heard somewhere but I'm not sure whether it was made law. I heard he can detain people indefinitely.

KungfuKitten

What if a new plaintiff shows up and they try the man because the plaintiff from the case in which he has been acquitted for is different, like, a different family is suing the man instead of the family from before, would that make it double jeopardy? Or it's all the same since it has to be through public prosecution?

gamingqueen

So charge him with a federal crime.buttons990

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

What if a new plaintiff shows up and they try the man because the plaintiff from the case in which he has been acquitted for is different, like, a different family is suing the man instead of the family from before, would that make it double jeopardy? Or it's all the same since it has to be through public prosecution?

worlock77

I think you're confusing criminal law with civil law.

Yes but what if a different family is suing the man this time? Public prosecuter file lawsuits on behalf of people after all.

Edit: I guess that's too detailed. Has anyone else studied law here?

This is why the justice system sucks. :| He probably only confessed because it was eating his conscious alive and he knew he'd get away with it anyway. >_>The-Apostle

I disagree with that. I don't think incidents like this indicate that the justice system sucks. I think it indicates that life isn't perfect and things like this are going to happen.

I mean, do you have any remedy for incidents like this?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

What if a new plaintiff shows up and they try the man because the plaintiff from the case in which he has been acquitted for is different, like, a different family is suing the man instead of the family from before, would that make it double jeopardy? Or it's all the same since it has to be through public prosecution?

gamingqueen

I think you're confusing criminal law with civil law.

Yes but what if a different family is suing the man this time? Public prosecuter file lawsuits on behalf of people after all.

Edit: I guess that's too detailed. Has anyone else studied law here?

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

What if a new plaintiff shows up and they try the man because the plaintiff from the case in which he has been acquitted for is different, like, a different family is suing the man instead of the family from before, would that make it double jeopardy? Or it's all the same since it has to be through public prosecution?

trick_man01

So charge him with a federal crime.buttons990

If the people pressing rhe charge and victims were different then we wouldn't have the same charges.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I think you're confusing criminal law with civil law.

LJS9502_basic

Yes but what if a different family is suing the man this time? Public prosecuter file lawsuits on behalf of people after all.

Edit: I guess that's too detailed. Has anyone else studied law here?

I'm not arguing the term. please...

If the people pressing rhe charge and victims were different then we wouldn't have the same charges.

gamingqueen

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

Yes but what if a different family is suing the man this time? Public prosecuter file lawsuits on behalf of people after all.

Edit: I guess that's too detailed. Has anyone else studied law here?

gamingqueen

I'm not arguing the term. please...

I think this really sucks, but we have double jeopardy for a reason. If we pick and choose when people have the right not to be put on trial twice, where does it end? You start with this, then people are gonna start wanting to go to if new evidence is found, then people are gonna want to go this, and that, and eventually that right will be completly useless.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

If the people pressing rhe charge and victims were different then we wouldn't have the same charges.

LJS9502_basic

Double jepardy= criminal A X Victim A= criminal acquitted. Then case of A X A was brought up again.

Not double jeopardy= criminal A X victim B

That's what I mean. Otherwise they wouldn't list names in cases.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The prosecutor works for the government and handles criminal trials. Civil lawsuits are fired by interested parties. LJS9502_basic

I'm not arguing the term. please...

I wasn't arguing. Enquiring is the word.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

If the people pressing rhe charge and victims were different then we wouldn't have the same charges.

gamingqueen

Double jepardy= criminal A X Victim A= criminal acquitted. Then case of A X A was brought up again.

Not double jeopardy= criminal A X victim B

That's what I mean. Otherwise they wouldn't list names in cases.

Somebody can correct if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there was no victim B in this case.

gamingqueen killed LJbasic and was aquitted for LJbasic's case. gamingqueen killed worlock also but that doesn't mean worlock doesn't have the right to sue gamingqueen even if gamingqueen killed them both in one place and one time.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

If the people pressing rhe charge and victims were different then we wouldn't have the same charges.

gamingqueen

Double jepardy= criminal A X Victim A= criminal acquitted. Then case of A X A was brought up again.

Not double jeopardy= criminal A X victim B

That's what I mean. Otherwise they wouldn't list names in cases.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You can't retry criminal cases. No double jeopardy. Now if the crime was the same act but a different incident....that is different.

GreySeal9

Double jepardy= criminal A X Victim A= criminal acquitted. Then case of A X A was brought up again.

Not double jeopardy= criminal A X victim B

That's what I mean. Otherwise they wouldn't list names in cases.

Somebody can correct if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there was no victim B in this case.

Ok that makes sense then. :P sorry :oops:

gamingqueen killed LJbasic and was aquitted for LJbasic's case. gamingqueen killed worlock also but that doesn't mean worlock doesn't have the right to sue gamingqueen even if gamingqueen killed them both in one place and one time.

gamingqueen

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You can't retry criminal cases. No double jeopardy. Now if the crime was the same act but a different incident....that is different.

LJS9502_basic

Double jepardy= criminal A X Victim A= criminal acquitted. Then case of A X A was brought up again.

Not double jeopardy= criminal A X victim B

That's what I mean. Otherwise they wouldn't list names in cases.

Depending, only acquitted charges can not be taken to court again. The same goes for civil lawsuits for those who are interested.

I sued LJ for stealing my console. GQ versus LJ for the case of console robbery. If both parties are the same and charge is similar and demands are similar than the case cannot be brought up in courts.

gamingqueen killed LJbasic and was aquitted for LJbasic's case. gamingqueen killed worlock also but that doesn't mean worlock doesn't have the right to sue gamingqueen even if gamingqueen killed them both in one place and one time.

gamingqueen

What you're talking about is two seperate charges, two seperate cases. That is not the case here. The man was charged with one murder, aquited of that murder, and then confessed to that murder later. He cannot be recharged for that murder.