Thanks for explaining it, but, I am still hanging on here...So, the guy robs the bank - that is the main crime, like KC murdering her baby is the main crime.
The guy goes immediately out to the streets to buy oodles of drugs with his newly-stolen monies. The catalyst for the 2nd crime is the first crime.
Now, I think he would be charged in his trial for the robbery with things like illegally obtained firearms, shooting a police officer in the foot during the commission of the crime, damage to the bank property, using a stolen vehicle as a get away car, fleeing from the police, etc.
I don't think he would be charged with what he did with the money after he got the money, but before arrest. I can't see the drug purchase listed as part of the charges in the bank robbery trial.
It is the same thing with KC. She had a dead body because the body was a product of a crime. The robber had money that was a product of his crime.
What they each do with these products after the crime are not the same thing as doing the crime itself. The robber bought drugs with his product and KC mistreated and illegally disposed of her product.
Am I making any sense here? lol.
So, what happens after the main crime is not the same thing as the crime itself.
See, what is fuzzy for me is that it would lead me to believe that KC can commit any number of additional crimes, as long as those crimes would not have been committed unless Caylee was dead. Therefore, anything criminal she does from here on out, as long as it is a direct result of Caylee's death is considered double jeopardy? Say that's not so.
And where does it end? If she would have kept the body in a meat locker for the whole time KC was in jail awaiting trial, could she then stuff Caylee in a bag and throw her in the forest and still not be able to be convicted for doing so simply because she was acquitted of the actual murder of Caylee and that would be a related crime?
Thank you for bearing with me here. I have this issue stuck in my head and I am trying to wrap my little brain around it before I can be at peace, lol.
So there is no chance then of this happening?
Well then, :yourock: because you are trying to ask the same question in a different way in order to get a different result.
Believe me, I'm on your side!
But again, I have to echo that I agree with what Azlawyer said to the nth degree and also to infinity.
I see what you are saying in the question, but there are subtle differences between the bank robber with the drugs and the murderer with the body.
I have to mention as an aside, lesson for bank robbers included in your question.i.e. it is never a good idea to interrupt the frenzied getaway to do some casual shopping:escape:.......for drugs or anything else. Well, maybe pretty shoes.
Anyway, back to the subtle difference:
The committing of a bank robbery does not always necessarily include the factual existence of drugs.
On the other hand, the commission of a murder, always, 100 % of the time, ends with at least one death. There is a body. Whatever happens to the body, the essence of murder is the unlawful taking of a life.
Now the essence of bank robbery does not have any elements suggesting controlled substances.
You can have a robbery without drugs--oodles or not.
You cannot have the murder without the proof that someone dies.
Since the elements needed to prove the bank robbery are different from the elements of a drug offense,
the robber will have separate charges delineating the robbery and then the drug stuff.
But in your murderer example, you have to prove the element of the death in order to prosecute the murder. That death presupposes the existence of a body.
Therefore, whatever flows from the disposal, the hiding, or otherwise involves the body is going to be subject matter that should be included at the murder trial.
It's because the elements of the crimes are "commingled." There are intrinically interconnected. Not so for the robbery/drug incidents.
You don't need a drug to prove a bank robbery.
You do need a dead body (whether decomposed or otherwise) to prove a murder occurred.
Yes you can prove a murder in Court without the recovery of the body.
But it is still essential that the jury find that a death occurred.
I hope I have explained it more clearly.
MH sharing an opinion:wolf:
hone: who can approve it (the forfeiture) in whole or in part.
iamashamed: :iamashamed
He can do that if he thinks it's so obvious that no evidence (no REAL evidence anyway) is needed.
