Isn't this Double Jeopardy? Missouri man indicted, accused of murdering 20-year-old son

[Wyatt earp]

So he served time for assault and now faces murder for the same crime . Never heard of it before



Missouri man indicted, accused of murdering 20-year-old son after shaking him as baby


Missouri man indicted, accused of murdering 20-year-old son after shaking him as baby

A Missouri father was indicted on murder charges Tuesday after his 20-year-old son — whom he was convicted of assaulting at 6 weeks old — died in April.

Olin Tannery, 39, of Excelsior Springs, pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree assault in August 1999 for shaking and squeezing Dominic Pittsenbarger, his infant son, in 1998, The Kansas City Starreported.


Tannery was sentenced to 13 years in prison and was released in 2007.

Pittsenbarger suffered from rib fractures, a fractured vertebra, subdural bleeding and head injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome. Doctors predicted he would not survive

Pittsenbarger did survive — albeit with permanent brain damage — and was adopted by Wendell Pittsenbarger, whose last name he took.

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[Wyatt earp]

I never read this before and I read alot . Now I have to Google this.

 

[Wyatt earp]

WTF...learn something new everyday


Gamble v. United States | Constitutional Accountability Center

Gamble v. United States
In 2015, a police officer in Mobile, Alabama pulled Terance Martez Gamble over for a broken tail light on his car. During the stop, the officer discovered both a gun and marijuana paraphernalia in Gamble’s car. Gamble, who had been convicted of second-degree felony robbery seven years earlier, was barred from owning a firearm. The state of Alabama prosecuted Gamble for illegal possession of a firearm, and he served one year in prison. Subsequently, the federal government also charged Gamble with illegal possession of a firearm in relation to the same 2015 incident.

Gamble asked the U.S. District Court to dismiss his federal indictment on the ground that it violated his Fifth Amendment protection from Double Jeopardy. The District Court ruled that the dual-sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause, which permits a second prosecution for the same offense by a different “sovereign,” permitted the federal case to proceed. Gamble appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and that court affirmed the lower court’s decision. Gamble, who is now serving time in federal prison, asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its past decisions allowing successive prosecutions for the same offense by different sovereigns (i.e., the “dual-sovereignty doctrine”). CAC, along with the Cato Institute, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Gamble, urging the Supreme Court to grant review, and the Court agreed to hear Gamble’s case.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It isn't double jeopardy. The first charge was assault. This one is murder.

 

[Lewdog]

Not double jeopardy and there is no statute of limitations on murder.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It isn't double jeopardy. The first charge was assault. This one is murder.

It's the same crime, that's like me punching you in the nose serving time, you die 50 years later and the corner blames it on me punching you in the nose.


.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It isn't double jeopardy. The first charge was assault. This one is murder.

One has to wonder what makes the OP think that the double-jeopardy rule means that having been convicted and served sentence for a crime lets one off the hook for consequences that later happen as a result of that crime.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Not double jeopardy and there is no statute of limitations on murder.

Oh yeah two different charges, brain fart, you're right.


Never mind...


.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It isn't double jeopardy. The first charge was assault. This one is murder.

It's the same crime, that's like me punching you in the nose serving time, you die 50 years later and the corner blames it on me punching you in the nose.


.

Keep in mind that that there is a solidly-established principle that if someone dies as a result of a felony, even if that death was not intentional, the one who committed that felony can be prosecuted for murder.

It doesn't matter if the death occurred long after the felon had been convicted, and served his sentence, for the original crime.

 

[The Professor]

There is something in the law called the Delayed Death Exception of double jeopardy. Here is how one source describes it:

“A Bronx County judge ruled that double jeopardy did not apply to a murder charge against a defendant who had already spent 11 years in prison for attempted murder for the same shooting. The man he was originally convicted of shooting survived, but the bullet remained in his spine. 19 years after the defendant was released from prison, the man he was convicted of shooting suffered an infection due to the bullet and died.

“Although the exclusion from the double jeopardy rule applies only to murder cases, caution should also be taken in other cases. A prosecutor might bring a future charge, arguing that newly discovered victims, damages, or acts were part of a separate course of conduct from the original charge and not subject to the double jeopardy rule. Even if a judge later disagrees, there is still a risk of arrest and having to defend the new charges. To eliminate the risk of future prosecution, the plea bargain should explicitly state, in writing or on the record in open court, that it covers all acts and results arising from the same course of conduct.”

All About Double Jeopardy in Delayed Death Murder Cases

In one case, defendant Ronald Latham pleaded guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 7 ½ – 22 ½ years. One month later his victim Marie Shambeau had a stroke and died.

“Soon after, the Rensselaer County District Attorney's office indicted Mr. Latham on a charge of second-degree murder, arguing that his case fit the delayed-death exception to double jeopardy law. Second-degree murder carries a minimum sentence of 25 years to life.

“Mr. Latham challenged the indictment, arguing that a 1983 Court of Appeals ruling said that a person convicted of a lesser crime could be later charged with murder only if the first conviction was for a "nonhomicide offense." Attempted murder, he contended, is a homicide offense.

“A lower court agreed, and dismissed the indictment. But it was reinstated by the Appellate Division. Today the Court of Appeals said that attempted murder is "by definition a nonhomicide offense."

Mr. Latham's lawyer, F. Stanton Ackerman, said he might appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court. If he does so, it would further delay renewed prosecution of Mr. Latham, who is in Attica state prison.

Court Upholds Murder Charge if Death Follows a Lesser Plea

In reviewing SCOTUS decisions on double jeopardy, I found none that addressed this situation directly; however, I believe the Court would find the Delayed Death Exception does not violate the protections afforded by the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment provides that no one shall be put in jeopardy twice for substantially the same crime. I doubt the Court would find that attempted murder and murder are the same.

It may seem unfair to allow a defendant to be charged with murder after he has already been convicted of attempted murder; however it would also be unfair to prohibit the prosecution from pursuing murder charges. Prosecutors must try attempted murder cases as quickly as possible while witnesses are available and memories are fresh. They should not be barred from later charging the defendant with with the crime of murder which no one know would occur when the first case was tried.

 

[Moonglow]

So he served time for assault and now faces murder for the same crime . Never heard of it before



Missouri man indicted, accused of murdering 20-year-old son after shaking him as baby


Missouri man indicted, accused of murdering 20-year-old son after shaking him as baby

A Missouri father was indicted on murder charges Tuesday after his 20-year-old son — whom he was convicted of assaulting at 6 weeks old — died in April.

Olin Tannery, 39, of Excelsior Springs, pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree assault in August 1999 for shaking and squeezing Dominic Pittsenbarger, his infant son, in 1998, The Kansas City Starreported.


Tannery was sentenced to 13 years in prison and was released in 2007.

Pittsenbarger suffered from rib fractures, a fractured vertebra, subdural bleeding and head injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome. Doctors predicted he would not survive

Pittsenbarger did survive — albeit with permanent brain damage — and was adopted by Wendell Pittsenbarger, whose last name he took.

No..He is being charged with a different crime not the same one.

 

[DOTR]

It’s obviously a way around our constitutional double jeopardy protections. I’ve noticed it a lot over the last few years. Federal over reach. We are now subject to two sovereigns and each may prosecute us separately.
Our states should step in and protect us.

 

[Moonglow]

It’s obviously a way around our constitutional double jeopardy protections. I’ve noticed it a lot over the last few years. Federal over reach. We are now subject to two sovereigns and each may prosecute us separately.
Our states should step in and protect us.

Damn that Trump...

 

[strollingbones]

bs dotr.....you shake a baby its assault....that baby dies later....of results of being shaken.....its murder....simple as that....no double anything.....just justice

 

[Lewdog]

There is something in the law called the Delayed Death Exception of double jeopardy. Here is how one source describes it:

“A Bronx County judge ruled that double jeopardy did not apply to a murder charge against a defendant who had already spent 11 years in prison for attempted murder for the same shooting. The man he was originally convicted of shooting survived, but the bullet remained in his spine. 19 years after the defendant was released from prison, the man he was convicted of shooting suffered an infection due to the bullet and died.

“Although the exclusion from the double jeopardy rule applies only to murder cases, caution should also be taken in other cases. A prosecutor might bring a future charge, arguing that newly discovered victims, damages, or acts were part of a separate course of conduct from the original charge and not subject to the double jeopardy rule. Even if a judge later disagrees, there is still a risk of arrest and having to defend the new charges. To eliminate the risk of future prosecution, the plea bargain should explicitly state, in writing or on the record in open court, that it covers all acts and results arising from the same course of conduct.”

All About Double Jeopardy in Delayed Death Murder Cases

In one case, defendant Ronald Latham pleaded guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 7 ½ – 22 ½ years. One month later his victim Marie Shambeau had a stroke and died.

“Soon after, the Rensselaer County District Attorney's office indicted Mr. Latham on a charge of second-degree murder, arguing that his case fit the delayed-death exception to double jeopardy law. Second-degree murder carries a minimum sentence of 25 years to life.

“Mr. Latham challenged the indictment, arguing that a 1983 Court of Appeals ruling said that a person convicted of a lesser crime could be later charged with murder only if the first conviction was for a "nonhomicide offense." Attempted murder, he contended, is a homicide offense.

“A lower court agreed, and dismissed the indictment. But it was reinstated by the Appellate Division. Today the Court of Appeals said that attempted murder is "by definition a nonhomicide offense."

Mr. Latham's lawyer, F. Stanton Ackerman, said he might appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court. If he does so, it would further delay renewed prosecution of Mr. Latham, who is in Attica state prison.

Court Upholds Murder Charge if Death Follows a Lesser Plea

In reviewing SCOTUS decisions on double jeopardy, I found none that addressed this situation directly; however, I believe the Court would find the Delayed Death Exception does not violate the protections afforded by the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment provides that no one shall be put in jeopardy twice for substantially the same crime. I doubt the Court would find that attempted murder and murder are the same.

It may seem unfair to allow a defendant to be charged with murder after he has already been convicted of attempted murder; however it would also be unfair to prohibit the prosecution from pursuing murder charges. Prosecutors must try attempted murder cases as quickly as possible while witnesses are available and memories are fresh. They should not be barred from later charging the defendant with with the crime of murder which no one know would occur when the first case was tried.

I think the only real question would be, would the judge give the defendant credit for any time served towards the punishment of his murder sentence based on the time he did for the previous charge? I think it would come down to whether the judge would feel if in the original trial if the defendant was charged with more than one crime, he'd be given consecutive or concurrent sentences, however, this judge has the benefit of knowing if the defendant turned his life around and became a contributing member of society after serving his first sentence.

 

[martybegan]

There is something in the law called the Delayed Death Exception of double jeopardy. Here is how one source describes it:

“A Bronx County judge ruled that double jeopardy did not apply to a murder charge against a defendant who had already spent 11 years in prison for attempted murder for the same shooting. The man he was originally convicted of shooting survived, but the bullet remained in his spine. 19 years after the defendant was released from prison, the man he was convicted of shooting suffered an infection due to the bullet and died.

“Although the exclusion from the double jeopardy rule applies only to murder cases, caution should also be taken in other cases. A prosecutor might bring a future charge, arguing that newly discovered victims, damages, or acts were part of a separate course of conduct from the original charge and not subject to the double jeopardy rule. Even if a judge later disagrees, there is still a risk of arrest and having to defend the new charges. To eliminate the risk of future prosecution, the plea bargain should explicitly state, in writing or on the record in open court, that it covers all acts and results arising from the same course of conduct.”

All About Double Jeopardy in Delayed Death Murder Cases

In one case, defendant Ronald Latham pleaded guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 7 ½ – 22 ½ years. One month later his victim Marie Shambeau had a stroke and died.

“Soon after, the Rensselaer County District Attorney's office indicted Mr. Latham on a charge of second-degree murder, arguing that his case fit the delayed-death exception to double jeopardy law. Second-degree murder carries a minimum sentence of 25 years to life.

“Mr. Latham challenged the indictment, arguing that a 1983 Court of Appeals ruling said that a person convicted of a lesser crime could be later charged with murder only if the first conviction was for a "nonhomicide offense." Attempted murder, he contended, is a homicide offense.

“A lower court agreed, and dismissed the indictment. But it was reinstated by the Appellate Division. Today the Court of Appeals said that attempted murder is "by definition a nonhomicide offense."

Mr. Latham's lawyer, F. Stanton Ackerman, said he might appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court. If he does so, it would further delay renewed prosecution of Mr. Latham, who is in Attica state prison.

Court Upholds Murder Charge if Death Follows a Lesser Plea

In reviewing SCOTUS decisions on double jeopardy, I found none that addressed this situation directly; however, I believe the Court would find the Delayed Death Exception does not violate the protections afforded by the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment provides that no one shall be put in jeopardy twice for substantially the same crime. I doubt the Court would find that attempted murder and murder are the same.

It may seem unfair to allow a defendant to be charged with murder after he has already been convicted of attempted murder; however it would also be unfair to prohibit the prosecution from pursuing murder charges. Prosecutors must try attempted murder cases as quickly as possible while witnesses are available and memories are fresh. They should not be barred from later charging the defendant with with the crime of murder which no one know would occur when the first case was tried.

I think the only real question would be, would the judge give the defendant credit for any time served towards the punishment of his murder sentence based on the time he did for the previous charge? I think it would come down to whether the judge would feel if in the original trial if the defendant was charged with more than one crime, he'd be given consecutive or concurrent sentences, however, this judge has the benefit of knowing if the defendant turned his life around and became a contributing member of society after serving his first sentence.

He should be given credit for time served, which would add to the mitigation of the double jeopardy issues.

 

[DOTR]

bs dotr.....you shake a baby its assault....that baby dies later....of results of being shaken.....its murder....simple as that....no double anything.....just justice

Maybe so. But we should be careful about double jeapardy cases and ere on the side of caution.
And crazy prosecutors.

Americans are already the most controlled people on earth.

 

[DOTR]

It isn't double jeopardy. The first charge was assault. This one is murder.

bs dotr.....you shake a baby its assault....that baby dies later....of results of being shaken.....its murder....simple as that....no double anything.....just justice

And no reason to bring babies into this.

 

[Montrovant]

bs dotr.....you shake a baby its assault....that baby dies later....of results of being shaken.....its murder....simple as that....no double anything.....just justice

Maybe so. But we should be careful about double jeapardy cases and ere on the side of caution.
And crazy prosecutors.

Americans are already the most controlled people on earth.

We can own guns, we can speak out against our political leaders, we can burn our own flag, the freedom to speak our minds is enshrined in our constitution...yep, sounds like the most controlled people on the planet. I'm sure the citizens of North Korea would feel horribly oppressed to live in the US. Women in Saudi Arabia would wonder where all their choices went were they to move here. Those carefree Syrians would be stifled by the controlling nature of American government.



As to the OP, as others have said, these are two different crimes, technically, so no double jeopardy.