Resurrection will negate guilty plea

[Locknar]

This is one of the saddest stories (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511779,00.html) I've read in a long, long time.

In short, a woman plead guilty to 1st degree murder after the prosecutors agreed her plea would be withdrawn if her 1 year old son is resurrected.

She was part of "1 Mind Ministries" (a cult); they stopped feeding the child after he refused to say "Amen" after a meal....he died.

At some point, this woman will wake up and realize what she has done....

[davefoc]

It sounds like she didn't get much of a concession in return for the guilty plea. If the child is resurrected after she's been convicted, withdrawing her guilty plea won't help her much unless she finds a sympathetic judge who grants her a new trial.

I suspect the case law on granting new trials based on resurrections is sketchy though. It's hard to predict how this would go. Perhaps the resurrecting entity could help out with some legal assistance as well or better yet perhaps it would just resurrect the kid before she's convicted and simplify all the legal issues.

[tsig]

It sounds like she didn't get much of a concession in return for the guilty plea. If the child is resurrected after she's been convicted, withdrawing her guilty plea won't help her much unless she finds a sympathetic judge who grants her a new trial.

I suspect the case law on granting new trials based on resurrections is sketchy though. It's hard to predict how this would go. Perhaps the resurrecting entity could help out with some legal assistance as well or better yet perhaps it would just resurrect the kid before she's convicted and simplify all the legal issues.

The case law is sketchy but theologically, if we go by precedent, the child will be the savior of the world and as such can pardon His mother. Hell she'll be the new BVM (without the V) so on your knees thou unbeliever.

I for one would be the first to recognize our walking undead zombie baby jesus.

[Harpyja]

I for one would be the first to recognize our crawling undead zombie baby jesus.

Fixed.

Technically, regardless of whether or not the child is resurrected, the woman would still be guilty of murder. According to Wikipedia, "murder as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)." (emphasis mine) Whether or not the child is resurrected post-facto, she's still guilty.

[Rodibidably]

Fixed.

Technically, regardless of whether or not the child is resurrected, the woman would still be guilty of murder. According to Wikipedia, "murder as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)." (emphasis mine) Whether or not the child is resurrected post-facto, she's still guilty.
If I TRY to kill somebody but fail, I'm not guilty of murder, only attempted murder.
Likewise, if I try to kill somebody, they "die" for a time, and are resesitated, again, I would be guilty of attempted murder, not murder...

This seems like it would fall inot that category. If the person comes back to life, whether it is on the operating table or a grave a week later, I would THINK the same rules would apply.

I MAY be wrong, but I would suspect that the guilty verdict for murder would be void, and a new trial for attempted murder would have ot take place.

[MG1962]

without trying to make light of a dreadful situation. I would love to see the look on the prosecuting teams face if the poor little thing did resurrect

[fuelair]

If I TRY to kill somebody but fail, I'm not guilty of murder, only attempted murder.
Likewise, if I try to kill somebody, they "die" for a time, and are resesitated, again, I would be guilty of attempted murder, not murder...

This seems like it would fall inot that category. If the person comes back to life, whether it is on the operating table or a grave a week later, I would THINK the same rules would apply.

I MAY be wrong, but I would suspect that the guilty verdict for murder would be void, and a new trial for attempted murder would have ot take place.
Not exactly, a guy here in FL died recently. He was the victim (one of three) of a shooting 25 years ago. The death was ruled a homicide because the damage from the shooting provably caused his death. Did not matter much to the murderer - this victim got to watch him die in 2000. He was paralyzed by it. (the shooting, not watching the execution). In the situation you mention, as soon as the victim does die, if it can be shown the action of the attacker caused the death (even over time) it is still murder.

[fuelair]

If I TRY to kill somebody but fail, I'm not guilty of murder, only attempted murder.
Likewise, if I try to kill somebody, they "die" for a time, and are resesitated, again, I would be guilty of attempted murder, not murder...

This seems like it would fall inot that category. If the person comes back to life, whether it is on the operating table or a grave a week later, I would THINK the same rules would apply.

I MAY be wrong, but I would suspect that the guilty verdict for murder would be void, and a new trial for attempted murder would have ot take place.
Note, in the time available for resuscitation there would not be time for a trial.

[JoeTheJuggler]

My understanding is that this silly concession in the plea bargain wasn't so much in exchange for the guilty plea but for her testimony against other cult members (including for charges of first degree murder).

It also looks like they worded it carefully enough that the woman isn't going to get off for some shoehorning of something else as "resurrection".

ETA: What I find more baffling is that even though the woman is obviously delusion and not remorseful (she still believes her son's death was God's will), she is considered competent for purposes of this testimony. I worry about a challenge to that. By agreeing to her resurrection delusion as a term of the agreement, the prosecution might it easy for the defense (in these other cases) to get her testimony thrown out.

[I Ratant]

One wonders about the effects of say, the autopsy, or the embalming on any future activities of the victim.

[Miss_Kitt]

Sadly, though, she IS getting off. She is getting a 20-year suspended sentence and 5 years probation. For starving her child to death! A 1-year-old isn't even all that verbal, their language skills at that point are very sketchy. (The old rule of thumb is, "Walking at one, talking at two." Not perfect, but you get the drift.)

I understand wanting to nail the other idiots involved, but honestly, NO time for murder of a child?!!

I'm deeply saddened.

-- MK

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sadly, though, she IS getting off. She is getting a 20-year suspended sentence and 5 years probation. For starving her child to death! A 1-year-old isn't even all that verbal, their language skills at that point are very sketchy. (The old rule of thumb is, "Walking at one, talking at two." Not perfect, but you get the drift.)

I understand wanting to nail the other idiots involved, but honestly, NO time for murder of a child?!!

I'm deeply saddened.

-- MK

Yeah, that's really bad. Have you heard is there at least any psychiatric treatment required?

She's obviously a dangerous person.

ETA: To answer my own question: yes, she is required to undergo deprogramming and psychiatric counseling.

[I Ratant]

Yeah, that's really bad. Have you heard is there at least any psychiatric treatment required?

She's obviously a dangerous person.

ETA: To answer my own question: yes, she is required to undergo deprogramming and psychiatric counseling.
.
And sterilization!

[Locknar]

ETA: To answer my own question: yes, she is required to undergo deprogramming and psychiatric counseling.
Well thank jebus (The Simpsons) for that!

[davefoc]

Fixed.

Technically, regardless of whether or not the child is resurrected, the woman would still be guilty of murder. According to Wikipedia, "murder as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)." (emphasis mine) Whether or not the child is resurrected post-facto, she's still guilty.

I tried to run down a definitive answer on this. Interestingly there doesn't seem to be much discussion as to the consequences of resurrection in murder cases out there. I think, though, the situation is murkier than you suggest. Killing is defined as causing death and death by some definitions seems to be a state of permanent non-life. So, I think, she might be pretty well placed in the event of a resurrection to argue that she didn't actually kill the child since its non-life condition was only temporary.

Right now though, this does seem to be an academic discussion and hoping for a resurrection should probably be viewed as only a fall back legal strategy when she has exhausted her other legal options.

[Locknar]

Right now though, this does seem to be an academic discussion and hoping for a resurrection should probably be viewed as only a fall back legal strategy when she has exhausted her other legal options.She starved a 1 year old to death, and all she has to do is be "good" while on her 5 year probation and attend counseling.

What more could she want or hope to gain legal wise; do they need to throw in some paid vacations?

[eirik]

Go Rick Ross, I say.

And by the way, the legal term "insanity" is not the same as the medical term, or the more mundane use of the word. Most murderers are at least tempoarily insane in this latter sense. Not an expert on American law, but in Europe it corresponds pretty much to the medical term psychosis, or whatever they call it these days. It also has to be the main motivation, or direct cause if you will, to the murder.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I tried to run down a definitive answer on this. Interestingly there doesn't seem to be much discussion as to the consequences of resurrection in murder cases out there. I think, though, the situation is murkier than you suggest. Killing is defined as causing death and death by some definitions seems to be a state of permanent non-life. So, I think, she might be pretty well placed in the event of a resurrection to argue that she didn't actually kill the child since its non-life condition was only temporary.

Right now though, this does seem to be an academic discussion and hoping for a resurrection should probably be viewed as only a fall back legal strategy when she has exhausted her other legal options.

Well, since this is a hypothetical, I'll attempt to answer from my own experience as LE. ( this is under US law, your nation may or may not be similar)

She would still be guilty of murder as far as her trial/conviction and sentencing. Each act is "stand alone" regardless of circumstance.

( I had several occasions where someone stole things and after we were called and before we arrested them- they voluntarily returned whatever. They were still in violation of law for the act and were arrested. After that, its normally at the prosecutors discretion as to whether to proceed with a charge or not. I've seen it both ways depending on what was done)

Our law has several definitions of death ( for legal purposes) that is either clinical death or "legal" death. ( basically brain dead and total life support or physically missing usually for a period of 7 years) ( there are exceptions for these). For a charge of homicide to attach ( anywhere from manslaughter to murder) the physical body must be shut down and on RARE occasions the body is missing( those are hard as hell to bring and even harder to win). ( the other definitions are for other legal remedies)

So, if the child was declared dead for purpose of statute ( body ceased to function) then the charge would be upheld under US law whether the victim was resurrected at a later date.

However, we do have appeals and special circumstances post conviction. ( allowing for alterations/acquittals etc) if additional evidence surfaces.

Certainly a legitimate "return from the dead" would qualify. ( I've seen a lot less overturn a conviction) so under the hypothetical circumstances listed, should such a unique event occur, I could see an apellate court setting aside, overturning and expunging the original conviction altho there is no current remedy under US law which would mandate or guarantee such an action.