CocoaNuts posted:

A question that will haunt us for the rest of our lives...

gleebster posted:

Ooh, she'd dead?

No, just going to be sentenced on multiple charges, but not quite as many as were originally brought..

FoolyCharged posted:

That's to be expected. Once she got convicted and sentenced her sentence wasn't going to get any longer, just shorter.

gleebster posted:

Still, it's a bit of a change from the original tone of the thread, which was on the lines of "she's gonna be killed to silence her! I just know it!"

FoolyCharged posted:

That's to be expected. Once she got convicted and sentenced her sentence wasn't going to get any longer, just shorter.

BigHead posted:

Good question!

The Double Jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution (applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment) prohibits a person from twice being put into jeopardy for the same offense. There are two main categories of things that can "put someone into jeopardy." The first is what you are probably familiar with: if the government takes a case to trial and loses, the government cannot simply re-try that case. A re-trial is barred by double jeopardy.

The second and much more common application is doubling up someone's sentence for the same offense. So you hit the nail on the head, "he murdered one guy" is what the defense attorney is going to argue during the "merger" phase of sentencing. "Merger" means two or more guilty verdicts merge into one singular conviction, thus effectively erasing at least one of those counts. So since Chauvin committed manslaughter and Murder 3 and Murder 2 for murdering the same guy, his defense attorney is going to ask for the manslaughter and Murder 3 to "merge" into the Murder 2. Thus he will only be convicted of - and sentenced for - a singular count of Murder 2. Whether or not two counts merge have to do with, among other things, whether the different counts serve to address different societal interests.

There are lots of exceptions to this. Here's an example. A drunk driver is driving down the road and hits a pedestrian, thus committing both a DUI and an Assault 2nd. Those two counts would likely not merge, because the societal interests of criminalizing DUI and the societal interests of criminalizing hurting another person are different enough that the government may separately punish a person for violation each of those societal values.

In an average murder case, prosecutors (at least in Alaska) almost always charge Murder 1 / Murder 2 / Murder 2 / Manslaughter, thus charging four counts for "he murdered one guy." There are reasons to do this. Some are quite technical, like some technical defenses only apply to certain elements in certain counts but not to other counts. But mostly it's practical. A prosecutor wants to not put all of his eggs in one basket. Charging with a sole count of Murder 1 means two things: either the jury is going to convict or they are going to acquit on that one count (absent lesser-included jury instructions, but the prosecutor who trusts a judge to not gently caress those up is a bad prosecutor). Charging with all four means a prosecutor can say "hey you can believe that we've failed to prove specific intent to murder, but he for sure at least knew what he was doing was dangerous enough to kill someone." There's a lot more grey area and wiggle room for the jury. And, very importantly, there is a lot more grey area and wiggle room for an appellate court. The court of appeals can overturn the Murder 1 conviction but let the Murder 2 conviction stand, for instance. If a guilty verdict is returned on all four counts in a typical murder scenario, a prosecutor will stipulate to merge all the lesser counts into the highest surviving count.

So let's say that, like here, a jury finds guilty on all three counts. If the defense attorney is successful in arguing that the two lesser counts should merge into the highest count, those two lesser counts have their verdicts simply erased from the books. The judge only accepts the verdict and actually convicts the defendant of the highest count. Whether or not they are going to merge is a technical and very fact specific question. I would guess they are going to merge, just because I would expect that to happen when "he murdered one guy." When three guilty verdicts merge into one conviction, the defendant receives only one sentence. Thus, the scenario complies with the Double Jeopardy clause.

Now, as Mr. Nice pointed out, the question of whether two convictions (notice I used the word "convictions" not "guilty verdicts," so the convictions have survived merger) can be sentenced concurrently or consecutively is an entirely different question. That requires detailed knowledge of the applicable statutes and case law that I do not have. The merger analysis is a U.S. Constitutional issue so all criminal lawyers in the U.S. are familiar with that analysis.

CocoaNuts posted:

The countdown's on...


Ghislaine Maxwell on suicide watch, may seek sentencing delay: lawyer


https://nypost.com/2022/06/25/ghislaine-maxwell-on-suicide-watch-may-seek-sentencing-delay-lawyer/

quote:

As part of her suicide watch, her regular clothes, toothpaste, soap and papers were taken away, Sternheim said.

poverty goat posted:

she's wearing the smock now

phasmid posted:

What is that garment going to do? Those ppl could still harm themselves.

phasmid posted:

What is that garment going to do? Those ppl could still harm themselves.

poverty goat posted:

Lurking Haro posted:

They just can't be used to strangle themselves.

Cubone posted:

she looks silly... a fitting punishment

phasmid posted:

What is that garment going to do? Those ppl could still harm themselves.

poverty goat posted:

it's designed to be very hard to hang yourself with using only your bare hands in a cell, and to shame and dehumanize you for making the prison assign extra manpower to you

Cubone posted:

why on earth did they make these things white and gold

poverty goat posted:

she's wearing the smock now

poverty goat posted:

she's wearing the smock now

poverty goat posted:

she's wearing the smock now

dr.acula posted:

Why is the royal family even allowed to continue to exist?

Icochet posted:

They live in castles. Not much you can do

dr.acula posted:

Why is the royal family even allowed to continue to exist?

dr.acula posted:

Why is the royal family even allowed to continue to exist?