One of the pro's on the site would have to correct me but I think the statute used to be 1 year plus 1 day. If the victim lived past that date then murder charges could not be filed. I think that has been changed with the advent of medicine and technology so I guess "technically" they may be able to charge him. I think the problems they will run into is double jeopardy and the fact that it has been like, well a really really really long time. The thing with lawyers is that somewhere out there is 1 that believes he can convict him and 1 more that says they don't stand a chance. Both will become headline news and have their names on every news station for the next 6 months. Am I close @wjray ?
There is no statute of limitations for murder. But reason must prevail. If you live three decades after being assaulted, it wasn't the assault that killed you. The guy was 73. There are a lot of ailments that septuagenarians have that can kill them. Not all can be related to the shooting.
I'm aware of that amigo, the statute I was speaking of is how long after a shooting that murder charges can be brought. If you shoot a man and he dies (right away) but it takes them 10 years to put the puzzle together, you are going down. If you shoot a man and he lives (under the old statute) for 367 days then dies, they would not be able to charge you with murder. Now they can. I'm not saying they have a case here, I don't think anything happens with it. I hope anyway, far better things to talk about.
That statute is still in place I believe so that would be an issue to contend with. Other things to consider: He was never charged or tried for Brady's murder (so double jeopardy wouldn't apply here), he was not sentenced to jail, he was deemed not guilty by reason of insanity, there is a considerable lack of proof, the ME simply gave a cause of death and that is not a legal judgement. Perhaps any pursuing of a legal charge would have more to do with the fact that he currently spends 17 days out of every month at home with his mother. People who have contact with him on a regular basis seem to feel that he is still mentally unstable. I think at one point in time, IIRC, the Brady's and other victim's families were pretty pissed that he was getting so much time "free". Maybe they have come to accept it and I would think their opinion might have some sway with a DA in terms of whether to file a murder charge.
But possibly muddling the issue, will it matter that Brady's injuries occurred during an attempt on the President's life? If I'm not mistaken, Presidential assassinations have their own set of legal parameters, so it might not be a precedent that can be applied to your run-of-the-mill case.
That year and a day statute probably varies from state to state. It would be very interesting to see a Hinkley trial. He was found not guilty of all charges by reason of insanity but he was never charged with murder because nobody he shot had died. Ronald Reagan made a full recovery back to robust health so his death years later can't be tied to his being shot. On the other hand after Hinkley shot Brady in the head Brady was never the same. He basically lived out his life in a wheel chair and had brain damage that affected his speech and his memory. So even if Hinkley was insane at the time of the shooting a different judge in a different court might render a different verdict. Hinkley shot Reagan to try to impress Jodie Foster. Even if Jodie was wacko enough to be impressed by that it now turns out that she is a lesbian. So for her to fall in love with Hinkley he would have to become a woman. Maybe his new name could be Clarice. Hello, Clarice. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a fine chianti. Whoever said Truth is Stranger than Fiction sure had it right.
As far as I know, in Louisiana, there is no statute of limitations on instituting prosecution on any crime where the penalty is death or life in prison. http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=112620 Battery isn't a responsive verdict to first or second degree murder in Louisiana, so I don't think there would be a double jeopardy problem. Murder is the killing of a human being where the perpetrator has specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. I don't think (his mental issues aside) it could be seriously argued that Hinkley DIDN'T have the specific intent to kill or cause great bodily harm. The problem then becomes, as @shane0911 and @red55 have pointed out, whether Hinckley's actions CAUSED Brady's death. That's a huge stretch. Generally, in a "normal" murder trial you'll have a doctor with the coroner's office testify as to the cause and manner of death. Despite the terminology, it's actually the manner of death that's important. Cause of death is usually something like, "exsanguination due to traumatic dissection of carotid artery." But the manner of death is usually "homicide", "accident" or "natural." In order to testify to either cause or manner, the coroner's doctor will have to be qualified as an expert (almost always happens) and if manner of death is in dispute, the defendant can bring in his own expert. In Hinckley's case I'd seriously doubt you'll have a coroner saying the manner of death -- 30 some odd years later -- was homicide. Natural is, in my opinion, much more likely and what any expert hired by the defense would say. This is way too much like a law school exam question for me on a Monday where I'm not feeling great.
Not being oppositional, just too lazy to google it at the moment, but are you sure that's right? If it was NGBRI then there may be res judicata issue because he has been adjudicated to not be able to distinguish right from wrong at the time he committed the crime. And, so, prosecution could be barred on not-quite-but-almost double jeopardy grounds. On the other hand, if he was adjudicated incompetent to stand trial -- i.e. he couldn't assist his attorney in the formulation of a defense -- and unrestorable -- i.e., he would never get any better -- then the state could seek to have him declared restored to sanity (though there are, at least in Louisiana, specific time limitations on how long he can remain in custody and regular reviews) and, if successful, start the prosecution for murder.
What I heard on TV was that Hinkley had been found not guilty of everything he was charged with by reason of insanity. I don't know what degree of accuracy the TV report was and like you, I'm too lazy to google it because it sounds like that might be an issue that would take me longer than 30 seconds of google time to get to the real truth. By the way, do you still have your law clerks doing legal research in lawbooks or do they all use google for that now?
