Hey Proprietor,
This posting will attempt to be responsive to the two "subjects" for which you have quoted me and provided your comments on same. I must admit, however, that I am not quite sure what you are asking in your comments on my first quoted passage. In any case, I will attempt to respond to yours with my thoughts that I hope will make some sense.
1. First item based on the following portion of my earlier post: "...all of the charges for which Louis Roulet was on trial were dismissed with prejudice after the defense lawyer, Mick Haller, ripped the prosecution's case apart via what was essentially false evidence (testimony) he (the prison informant) manufactured and orchestrated."
Your comments in response to the above: "From what I understand, the prison informant had a history of testifying against fellow inmates in order to have his sentence reduced or quashed. The one that was used to prove his unreliability was the case in Arizona, where a man had confessed to him in a cell that he raped and/or killed a young girl. Even though later, DNA evidence had ruled that man to be innocent. Now, if the man had confessed to the informant for whatever reason that he was guilty, the prison informant wasn't necessarily lying. Wasn't that wrongfully convicted guy mentally disturbed or something anyway? So I'm confused how it proves the informant to be unreliable."
"One question about Roulet's mother. Even though it isn't stated I thought it might be implied in the film. That his mother lied about the rape and assault story just to explain why Roulet carried a knife. Is that correct?"
First let me point out the jailhouse informant's testimony was totally false. The false testimony was fabricated and solicited by Haller when he had a girlfriend or sister or someone visit the inmate and tell him what to do and say in court. It really did not matter that the snitch frequently gave false testimony - all that mattered was that his testimony worked in this particular case to get the charges dismissed against Roulet. Yes, I think you are correct that Roulet's mother gave false testimony to give a credible reason for her son to have a knife in his possession.
2. Second item concerning "Double Jeopardy" protection as noted in my earlier post: "When criminal charges are dismissed "with prejudice," that means the defendant can never be recharged for those particular crimes under double jeopardy protection."
Your comments in response to the above: "So essentially he has immunity from prosecution of rape and assault? That can't be right. I'm familiar with the old double jeopardy rule where one couldn't be convicted of the same murder twice. Which I don't agree with. Thankfully, in the UK they've got rid of that absurd law. As forensic science improves, so does the amount of evidence that can be retrieved. It only makes sense to leave open the possibility for a second charge to be levelled. You have to remember, in a case where someone was murdered. If the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean they're innocent. It simply means the evidence was insufficient to convince the jury to deliver a guilty verdict. The only way someone can be found innocent is if another person has been convicted of the crime."
Yes, after the assault and rape charges against Roulet were dismissed with prejudice, that does mean Roulet would never again have to face charges for assault and rape against that particular victim for that particular crime. While I am not a lawyer, here in the United States our laws basically follow Common Law inherited from England. Our laws, however, are also bound by our Constitution which goes to great lengths to protect citizens via the first ten amendments more commonly referred to as our Bill of Rights. Double jeopardy as well as a person’s protection against self incrimination are specified in the Fifth Amendment where it states, “...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....
While you have every right to disagree with the concept of double jeopardy, I have a bit of a problem with your describing the concept as an “absurd law.” Here in the United States, most of us take our Bill of Rights very seriously and consider those ten amendments as the very essential keystone of our Constitution upon which our basic human freedoms are ensured and protected. We try to uphold the concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and the concept that it is better to have ten guilty persons go free rather than have one innocent person be found guilty.
The whole idea of double jeopardy is to protect a person from having the government abuse its power by refiling criminal charges against a citizen after the government has already held a trial and the defendant was found not guilty. If a citizen has been found not guilty by a jury trial, we do not give the government a second bite of the apple by recharging that person with the same crime. We also have statutes of limitation on most criminal charges other than homicide. Some cultures may consider us a bit different in our approach to legal rights, but we consider it essential to our appreciation of human freedoms.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
reply
share