This is just wrong

[tyr]

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/l...ry/363600.html

The supreme court changed a law and now a man who served his time and has been
an upstanding citizen for the last 15 years may have to go back to jail.

[tropicsgoddess]

He served his time and did no other crimes that would cause him to possibly go back to prison! What a load of bullshit!

[BookstoreEscapee]

How is that not double jeopardy? They tried him and the case was concluded with a conviction and a sentence. Whether it was decided by a jury or a plea bargain shouldn't make a difference.

I also don't get how they can just decide a crime no longer exists so everyone who was convicted of that crime is fair game to be re-convicted? It existed at the time of his trial, it shouldn't be retroactive like that.

[AnqeiicDemise]

In gov class we got told that if it was legal for you to steal a car today (or 'borrow and not return' ) but the act of doing so was deemed illegal, those who stole cars BEFORE the new law could not be charged.


Isn't that what is going on here, somewhat?

He paid his dues and has worked hard to rebuild his life, why the hell should he be retried and sent to prison a second time? this is just.. ridiculous. Goodness gracious.

[Evil Queen]

Usual I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV speel.

..yeah, that's double Jepardy. He can't legally be sent back to jail unless he commited another crime.

[Diablo]

He is not being charged with the same crime, therefor the state is free to prosecute. Its shitty but not unheard of. I had a buddy in the navy serve brig time for a DUI charge, then serve civilian time in a jail for the same act, and then do more brig time for being UA for the time he was in civilian jail. He basically serve three sentences for the same crime. Again, its shitty but prosecutors want their names in the papers to further their careers.

[Pedersen]

What's going on here is despicable, really. The man was charged with a form of murder. He pleaded guilty, was sentenced, and did time.

The Supreme Court of that state then said that the specific form of murder he was charged with never existed. This made his entire case become "untried". Prosecutors found out, and went after him, since he had never been convicted *technically*. After all, if the form of murder he was convicted of never existed, he couldn't have been convicted of it.

I understand the logic. I just hope that their state Supreme Court passes a ruling which tells the prosecutors that anybody who was convicted/did time has already paid their dues, and the prosecutors now have to move on, or we will hear about more of this.

[Andara Bledin]

Ah, it's interesting to see the responses when the full story isn't presented.

Here's the real deal (as reported three days later by that same source):

The Andress ruling meant that the conviction was for a crime that is no longer valid. So the court had to scrap all current rulings and re-try them with under the new heading of "manslaughter". However, it was also ruled that any business that was already finished could be upheld with the same exact results, so there never has to be a new trial. But the defendants have to agree.

In the case of Charles Ray Walters, he doesn't want a new trial, or to have the new charge on his record. Oh, he still is happy that the old charge has to go away, but wants nothing put back in it's place. He wants a clean slate he doesn't deserve.

It's Walters' fault that it has to go back to trial because he (or his defense attourney, who I think might be an idiot) is refusing to accept the original plea bargain that was worked out back in 1989.

Now, it's interesting to note that the only records on the Internet of this case are in that one paper, and the information about how it is Walters that is causing the problems is only in the third piece, which is in the Opinion section without a byline, while the other two are both in local news with two different bylines.

^-.-^

[FuzzyKitten99]

Ah, it's interesting to see the responses when the full story isn't presented.

Here's the real deal (as reported three days later by that same source):

The Andress ruling meant that the conviction was for a crime that is no longer valid. So the court had to scrap all current rulings and re-try them with under the new heading of "manslaughter". However, it was also ruled that any business that was already finished could be upheld with the same exact results, so there never has to be a new trial. But the defendants have to agree.

In the case of Charles Ray Walters, he doesn't want a new trial, or to have the new charge on his record. Oh, he still is happy that the old charge has to go away, but wants nothing put back in it's place. He wants a clean slate he doesn't deserve.

It's Walters' fault that it has to go back to trial because he (or his defense attourney, who I think might be an idiot) is refusing to accept the original plea bargain that was worked out back in 1989.

Now, it's interesting to note that the only records on the Internet of this case are in that one paper, and the information about how it is Walters that is causing the problems is only in the third piece, which is in the Opinion section without a byline, while the other two are both in local news with two different bylines.

^-.-^

So much for objective and responsible journalism and reporting all the facts. ....lesigh....

[Anthony K. S.]

So, in other words, all this fool had to do was say "Okay" and fill out some paperwork, and he could have gone on with his life just as he had before?

But nooooooo . . . He had to make an issue of it, and now he's facing a new trial and possible prison time again.

The stupid is strong in this one . . .

[Umingmaq]

'But it's the principle.'

If he served time for a crime which now technically did not exist, could he not sue for false imprisonment? Probably not, but that would make as much sense as other aspects of this clusterf...