Odd question
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — My Cousin Vinny
jamesdean-13 — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 05:15 PM)
So, if someone (call him John) is arrested for "accessory to murder" because he was with someone accused of murder (call him Bill) . If Bill is found not guilty of murder, does that mean the case against John is dropped?
How does that work? -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 10:01 PM)
It's an interesting question.
But, also, somewhat more complex than you are implying.
The
short
answer is: no, the case will not be dropped against John.
You said that Bill is found not guilty of murder.
Was he acquitted altogether?
Or was he found not guilty of murder, but still guilty of something else (manslaughter or whatever)?
In any event, they are essentially two separate cases (the case against John versus the case against Bill).
The prosecutor would only bring the case if he felt that he had a good chance of "winning" (i.e., of proving the necessary facts).
Also, don't forget: two different juries could come to two different conclusions, based on the same exact set of facts.
In other words, Bill's jury could conclude that no murder occurred.
And, still, it's possible that John's jury hearing the same exact set of facts could conclude that a murder did indeed occur.
So, as I said, they are two completely separate cases. One really does not "hinge" upon the other. -
mikeyg24 — 9 years ago(June 28, 2016 07:31 PM)
In legal terms John is accessory to the 'fact'. If Bill is found not guilty of committing the fact then John can't be an accessory to something the court don't recognise as having occurred. The law isn't black and white but the other poster is taking the unnecessarily complicated approach.
Hey! You're not old enough to drink! Now go and die for your country!!! -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(June 28, 2016 09:14 PM)
You are 100% wrong.
First of all, if a person is found "not guilty" of murder, that does not mean that he did not commit the murder. That simply means that the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did commit the murder. Those are two different things.
So, in other words, it's not a "fact" that the murder did not occur. And it's not a "fact" that Bill did not commit a murder. The only "fact" is that the prosecutor did not convince a jury to the necessary degree.
Think of the OJ Simpson case. A murder occurred. In other words, (1) Nicole was murdered. (2) Ron was murdered. (3) OJ murdered them. Just because OJ was acquitted does not mean that, factually, those three things did not happen. It simply means that the prosecutor was not able to convince the jury to the required degree of certainty that they did happen.
Also, what if the prosecutor decided to do the trial of John first? (And the trial of Bill second.)
Under your theory, they would have the trial of John. On the very first day, the defense lawyer (for John) would say, "My client needs to be acquitted because there was never any trial of Bill. So the court can't even recognize that there was even a murder. So please end this trial and find my client John not guilty."
That makes sense to you?
You accuse me of taking an unnecessarily complicated approach. Even though mine is accurate and correct.
On the other hand, you are taking an overly simplistic approach. And you are 100% inaccurate and incorrect.