otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 184
It might be better if someone answers this who believes it is used and has discussed it. The concept (as I understand it) is that if a prosecutor cant prove who (of more than one person involved) committed a specific crime, neither party can be charged/tried/convicted (take your pick here). A suspect simply saying that someone else is responsible is just plain finger pointing. An example of this cross finger pointing defense might be this:otg, what if one participated and blamed the other as equally culpable or solely culpable even if the other party was innocent? Do Colorado statutes address this? TIA
I thought "cross finger pointing" also could be a short explanation for one blaming the other when one was innocent. :dunno:
ETA: imo, obviously, both are guilty of at least one covering for the other or both covering for a third party.
Two people of similar physical stature rob a bank wearing masks. They both leave fingerprints behind and are identified. During the robbery, a guard is shot and killed by one of the two robbers. When apprehended, each claims the other is the one who fired the shot that killed the guard. If the shooter cant be proven, does the prosecutor have to drop the murder charges against each? Of course not. As accomplices in the crime, they are each responsible for the outcome -- the death of the guard.
And as a side note to this example, the fact that even though the shooting was not premeditated and some might think therefore that it is not first-degree murder, it is M-1 because it was committed during the commission of another crime (the robbery). This is something some states call an aggravating circumstance; other states (Colorado) call it a felony murder. Felony murder is what makes JonBenets death (even if it was accidental) a first-degree murder. Kolar makes the case in his book that the aggravating circumstance was kidnapping, which to me seems like a stretch. I believe he may have been avoiding the obvious for public consumption in that the other crime being committed when she died was sexual assault. If this felony murder concept didnt exist and JonBenet died accidentally, the parents couldnt have been true-billed as accessories to the crime of first-degree murder. Without the felony murder concept, they might only have been true-billed for child endangerment by allowing the conditions to continue that led up to her death. Instead the Ramseys were indeed True Billed as accessories to the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.
Im not a lawyer (and if I were, I wouldnt admit to it publicly), and some of these things can get kind of murky and go into gray areas. There are other concepts that could be considered (depending on the circumstances). Proximate cause versus ultimate cause (or distal cause) if anyone cares to research. In law this is called the but for causation -- Latin term (since lawyers just love their dead language) Sine qua non. Even if an action doesnt directly cause an injury (or death), would the injury (or death) have happened but for the action (or inaction) being charged? In the Ramsey case, did the RGJ think JonBenet would have been killed but for the action (or inaction) of the parents in providing her protection from whoever they felt actually caused her death?
You might also want to look into a case where the prosecutor tried separate individuals on the same charge of murder under different theories of who actually committed the act. Each case contradicted the facts of the other case. If the one individual was guilty of bludgeoning the victim, the other two individuals could not have done it. If the other two individuals (brothers) bludgeoned the victim, then the other party could not have done it. The older suspect (Rick Chavis) was tried first with the verdict sealed until the end of trial of the two brothers -- Alex King (age 12) and Derek King (age 13). After all, if Chavis was found guilty of the crime, how could a jury even consider that someone else had committed it? All of which brought into question whether the prosecutor was acting appropriately. The States Attorney (or District Attorney) needs probable cause to charge someone. In this case, there was probable cause for either scenario. However, in order to get a conviction, the threshold of guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. If someone other than the person being tried could be guilty, does that in itself not establish reasonable doubt? Heres an article from 2002 that explains this conundrum probably better than I could hope (followed by a picture of the two brothers at their trial for murdering their father):
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020910.html
![2002-09-06-king-brothers.jpg](/forums/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Fphotos%2F2002-09-06-king-brothers.jpg&hash=95b7b69835f85dc2bbc2d75418e15edc)
(Incidentally, something I found peculiar about Florida law is that even though they were juveniles at the time, since they were True Billed by a GJ instead of arrested by police for probable cause, Florida Statutes required that the King Brothers be charged as adults -- as is anyone indicted by a Grand Jury in Florida.)
But to summarize all this rambling, this idea of cross finger pointing defense is nonsense. It is codified in the Colorado Statutes that the State does not have to prove which defendant did whatever caused the death if they acted together. Didnt work for Aaron Thompson (in Colorado), didnt work for Rick Chavis and the King Brothers (in Florida), and it wouldnt have worked for the Ramseys (except maybe in Boulder :giggle: ).