He wasn't charged with Assault he was charged with attempted murder. I'll agree that attempted murder and murder are not the same crime as far as the law is concerned. The difference is if the victim dies or not. In this case the victim did not die and he was charged with attempted murder because of that. He was convited and has sevred his time now the want to charge him again with murder for the same act because the victim has died. The fact that he is being charged with a new crime for the same act is what makes it double jeopardy.

I might be wrong, but I would think that a good attorney could get him off. I think it'd be very hard to prove that the shooting is what directly caused his death 41 years later. :shrug:

In any case, I think it's stretching the point to even charge the guy.

I suspect they know they won't get him, but they're going to make him very uncomfortable for a long time.

You can be charged with multiple charges from the same crime.

True Jude (oh and thanks for the info on the year and a day rule) but surely then everyone who is accused of murder would be accused of attempted murder too? I mean, you can't murder someone unless you attempt to, so should a murderer be tried for both?

The question remains, I think, should attempted murder be punished less harshly than actual murder? I mean if the intent is the same in both cases, shouldn't the punishment be? And what about the victim? It might be less traumatic in some cases to die than to survive a murder attempt, and certainly more frightening for the victim to know that the person who tried to kill them will be free again sooner. What if they decide they want to finish the job off? I can see a lot of sense in murder and attempted murder charges carrying the same penalty.

He served time for attempted murder, not assault.

I didn't say it is double jeopardy, just that it comes too close, at least for me – “moral double jeopardy” is the term being bandied about here, I believe.

Barnes is an ass, he's had a long history of criminal activity and parole violations, what he's done in his past is despicable and reprehensible but just because our state law allows murder charges to be filed 41 years after a victim has been assaulted (attempted murder is aggravated assault here in PA, boog and scotz) and given the perpetrator had been convicted of lesser charges and has served time for the offense, as barnes has done, doesn't mean I hafta agree with it. In my not so humble opinion, it’s more that our state law doesn’t precisely spell out in legalese that you can’t.

You'd be hard pressed to find cases like this one where the victim was not a cop, and even harder pressed to find a case where the verdict was in favor of the prosecution. Judges don’t like it and the public doesn’t like it. The prosecutor is using flimsy logic and loopholes to waste the taxpayer’s money on a trial for a guy who’s NEVER going to be convicted of murder in the first degree, which would mean life imprisonment, and who’s even unlikely to get murder in the second, which carries a life sentence with parole possible after 20 (I think), but who would – if convicted at all which is extremely unlikely - get murder in the third, a sentence that carries a minimum of 5 years, which barne’s has already served four times over.

The murder in the third and aggravated assault minimum sentences are the same, i think, lou. It's just that judges and juries use their own discretion and the facts of the case to either impose the minimum sentence or opt for a more severe (up to certain limitations) punishment.

(notice i used capital letters, people. :p:D )

Even though murder in the third degree is not a capital offense? :confused:

:p so sue me.

I discussed this story on another message board and someone stated that they most likely could. Most DA's wouldn't though because, well, what's the point really?

psssst....you spelled "suck" wrong. ;)

The murder/attempted murder thing is like being caught speeding and getting tickets for exceeding the speed limit by 15kph or less, 30kph or less and 42kph.

The case doesn't get anywhere close to double jeopardy. The charges are derived from a crime the took many years to develop through to finality.
The officer, while alive had life and livelihood destroyed by an attempt to end his life. A punishable crime committed against him. He lived on physically impaired and with no posibility of return to active duty or any other skilled occupation. His life was effectively destroyed, though a hope could remain for improvement, somehow.

The time served by the perpetrator of the attempted murder was rightly served. It was not to be expected that he could or would surpass all hope of the victim of the crime and become successful while the victim deteriorated, languishing in his injury from the crime. Therefore, the civil liberty enjoyed by the perpetrator was forfeited in the commission of the crime.

When the officer died, therefore double jeopardy could not apply.

The murderer should spend the remainder of his life in prison without the posibility of parole.

murder in the first for shooting someone during a robery? yikes.