San Quentin prison inmate first to be released under new CA murder law

[Disir]

A newly enacted state law allowed a San Quentin State Prison inmate to walk free Friday after a Contra Costa County judge overturned his felony murder conviction.

During a 9 a.m. hearing Friday in a Martinez courtroom, Judge Laurel Brady resentenced Adnan Khan on his robbery conviction and vacated his murder conviction, said Scott Alonso, a spokesman for the Contra Costa County district attorney’s office.

Khan was convicted for helping plan and execute an Antioch robbery in 2003, when an accomplice fatally stabbed their would-be marijuana dealer. Khan said that he was unaware that a weapon would be used during the crime.

....SB1437, which went into effect Jan. 1, limits who can be convicted of murder to those who actually commit a killing. Prior to this year, California law allowed for people who participated in crimes that led to a death — even if they did not assist in the killing — to be convicted of murder.

Under the new law, prisoners like Khan are eligible for resentencing on a case-by-case basis. His release would be the first under the new law, said his attorney, Kate Chatfield.
San Quentin prison inmate first to be released under new CA murder law

Here is the text of the law:

Bill Text - SB-1437 Accomplice liability for felony murder.

Um..........no. What is going to be the criteria on the case by case basis?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is difficult, it some circumstances I agree with the new limitation...including the example, if true.
The problem lies in the individual judges. A SJW judge is highly likely to use his discretion to release those he feels were victimized themselves by society. That has happened all too many times.

 

[BULLDOG]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

Nice strawman.... not

 

[BULLDOG]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

Nice strawman.... not

That is a simplified explanation of how it really works. If a person involved in a crime has no idea one of his accomplices is even carrying a gun, he won't be charged when that gun is used. If, on the other hand, he does know a gun will be involved, he knows a potential murder can happen, and he will be charged with murder.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****SMILE*****

 

[Disir]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

Existing law defines first degree murder, in part, as all murder that is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, specified felonies, including arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, and kidnapping.

toilet paper not listed.

 

[Disir]

It is difficult, it some circumstances I agree with the new limitation...including the example, if true.
The problem lies in the individual judges. A SJW judge is highly likely to use his discretion to release those he feels were victimized themselves by society. That has happened all too many times.

It depends on the case. That said, there is something disturbing with participating in a crime that knowingly had the capacity to or increased the odds exponentially.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

Nice strawman.... not

That is a simplified explanation of how it really works. If a person involved in a crime has no idea one of his accomplices is even carrying a gun, he won't be charged when that gun is used. If, on the other hand, he does know a gun will be involved, he knows a potential murder can happen, and he will be charged with murder.

I think the OP is asking a legitimate question...how does one factually prove "they didn't know"?
You can't.
What criminal is going to say "oh yeah, I knew he had it"...knowing doing so condemns him/her?
And what criminal is NOT going to sau they didn't know?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is difficult, it some circumstances I agree with the new limitation...including the example, if true.
The problem lies in the individual judges. A SJW judge is highly likely to use his discretion to release those he feels were victimized themselves by society. That has happened all too many times.

It depends on the case. That said, there is something disturbing with participating in a crime that knowingly had the capacity to or increased the odds exponentially.

I agree.

 

[BULLDOG]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

Nice strawman.... not

That is a simplified explanation of how it really works. If a person involved in a crime has no idea one of his accomplices is even carrying a gun, he won't be charged when that gun is used. If, on the other hand, he does know a gun will be involved, he knows a potential murder can happen, and he will be charged with murder.

I think the OP is asking a legitimate question...how does one factually prove "they didn't know"?
You can't.
What criminal is going to say "oh yeah, I knew he had it"...knowing doing so condemns him/her?
And what criminal is NOT going to sau they didn't know?

Being hard to prove is a good thing.in this case.

 

[Meathead]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

"Throwing toilet paper" is not a comission of a felony.

How do people get so ignorant?

 

[BULLDOG]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

"Throwing toilet paper" is not a comission of a felony.

How do people get so ignorant?

It's a crime dumb ass.

 

[Disir]

But that's not even a close comparison.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

Nice strawman.... not

That is a simplified explanation of how it really works. If a person involved in a crime has no idea one of his accomplices is even carrying a gun, he won't be charged when that gun is used. If, on the other hand, he does know a gun will be involved, he knows a potential murder can happen, and he will be charged with murder.

I think the OP is asking a legitimate question...how does one factually prove "they didn't know"?
You can't.
What criminal is going to say "oh yeah, I knew he had it"...knowing doing so condemns him/her?
And what criminal is NOT going to sau they didn't know?

Being hard to prove is a good thing.in this case.

While I agree it is better a guilty man walks free than an innocent imprisoned... the law is deeply flawed.

 

[BULLDOG]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

Nice strawman.... not

That is a simplified explanation of how it really works. If a person involved in a crime has no idea one of his accomplices is even carrying a gun, he won't be charged when that gun is used. If, on the other hand, he does know a gun will be involved, he knows a potential murder can happen, and he will be charged with murder.

I think the OP is asking a legitimate question...how does one factually prove "they didn't know"?
You can't.
What criminal is going to say "oh yeah, I knew he had it"...knowing doing so condemns him/her?
And what criminal is NOT going to sau they didn't know?

Being hard to prove is a good thing.in this case.

While I agree it is better a guilty man walks free than an innocent imprisoned... the law is deeply flawed.

I'm not sure if I completely agree with the law, but it seems reasonable that even if someone was committing a crime, he shouldn't be charged for the actions of another person that he had no foreknowledge or part in.

 

[leftwinger]

Hope they don't let my first X-Wife boyfriend out. He is big & mean, last i heard looking for me. Beat a guy to death with a shovel.....allegedly.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Nice strawman.... not

That is a simplified explanation of how it really works. If a person involved in a crime has no idea one of his accomplices is even carrying a gun, he won't be charged when that gun is used. If, on the other hand, he does know a gun will be involved, he knows a potential murder can happen, and he will be charged with murder.

I think the OP is asking a legitimate question...how does one factually prove "they didn't know"?
You can't.
What criminal is going to say "oh yeah, I knew he had it"...knowing doing so condemns him/her?
And what criminal is NOT going to sau they didn't know?

Being hard to prove is a good thing.in this case.

While I agree it is better a guilty man walks free than an innocent imprisoned... the law is deeply flawed.

I'm not sure if I completely agree with the law, but it seems reasonable that even if someone was committing a crime, he shouldn't be charged for the actions of another person that he had no foreknowledge or part in.

You're missing the point... how do you prove someone did know? Or disprove?

 

[Disir]

I think it's a bit more than that. So, something like two guys are in the process of a carjacking. There is a bit of a struggle and one guy kills the owner of a vehicle by stabbing him while pulling him out of the vehicle and the other guy jumps in the driver's seat. The guy in the driver's seat did not know that his partner had the knife or stabbed him.
Did you need to know in advance the guy was willing to or had anything with him to kill the owner of the vehicle? Hell, no as it's a violent crime. The participation in the crime itself increased the risk of murder.

It appears there is a nonsensical approach to release as many offenders back on the street as possible.

 

[BULLDOG]

That is a simplified explanation of how it really works. If a person involved in a crime has no idea one of his accomplices is even carrying a gun, he won't be charged when that gun is used. If, on the other hand, he does know a gun will be involved, he knows a potential murder can happen, and he will be charged with murder.

I think the OP is asking a legitimate question...how does one factually prove "they didn't know"?
You can't.
What criminal is going to say "oh yeah, I knew he had it"...knowing doing so condemns him/her?
And what criminal is NOT going to sau they didn't know?

Being hard to prove is a good thing.in this case.

While I agree it is better a guilty man walks free than an innocent imprisoned... the law is deeply flawed.

I'm not sure if I completely agree with the law, but it seems reasonable that even if someone was committing a crime, he shouldn't be charged for the actions of another person that he had no foreknowledge or part in.

You're missing the point... how do you prove someone did know? Or disprove?

I have no idea. That would be up to the person using that defense. I just think it would be reasonable to give them the opportunity to try..