Isaac Turnbaugh: Man Acquitted Of Friend's Murder Confesses To Police, Walks Free

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/isaac-turnbaugh_n_917477.html

        April 12, 2002 Declan Lyons was shot and killed outside of the restaurant he worked at.  About a month after the shooting, Isaac Turnbaugh, Lyon’s co-worker and good friend, went to a party and allegedly told multiple friends that he shot Lyons.  A friend told Turnbaugh’s mother and she contacted the police.  Turnbaugh denied killing Lyons when police questioned him.  After police arrested him, Turnbaugh was diagnosed with a serious mental illness.  In court, Turnbaugh’s lawyer argued that someone who consumed mushrooms then confessed to multiple things like shooting Lyons and being responsible for 9/11 could not be held seriously.  April 6, 2004 after five hours of deliberation, jurors acquitted Turnbaugh of murder.

       
       This was a very tough case for the police.  It took one month before they had leads on Lyon’s shooting.  When Turnbaugh became a suspect police could not find any motive for him killing Lyons.  Everyone at their work (Lyons and Turnbaugh) said the two were really good friends and there was no strain in the friendship.

About nine years later Turnbaugh contacted the police and confessed to the murdering Lyons.  There was nothing the police could do, because Turnbaugh is protected from being tried twice for the same crime under the double jeopardy clause (Fifth Amendment).  Some believe he confessed due to his mental illness and he is having some sort of relapse. Others think he really is guilty of committing this crime because he gave details that matched the case.  Authorities still believe Turnbaugh killed Lyons, but they cannot do anything about it because the Fifth Amendment bars them from doing so.

       
       The Framers created the double jeopardy clause so American citizens will not be tried for the same offense twice. This is a blessing and a curse. On one hand if someone is innocent they will not be tried for the same crime more than once, even if the prosecutors do not like the outcome. On the other hand, if someone is acquitted of an offense and later admits he/she did in fact commit the crime there is nothing the authorities can do about it.

State v. Knight

      

 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1064896.html

        Knight and her co-conspirators planned to rob Arren Cole.  Knight lured Cole into an alley where one of her co-conspirators robbed and shot Cole.  Cole was rushed to the hospital but pronounced dead on arrival.  The state of Washington charged Knight with conspiracy to commit second degree robbery, conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, conspiracy to commit first degree robbery, attempted first degree robbery, and first degree murder.  Knight negotiated a plea in which she was to testify against her co-conspirators, forfeit her car, and plead guilty to conspiracy to commit second degree robbery, conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, and second degree murder.  The court accepted her pleas, reduced them to judgment, and sentenced her to twenty-four years in prison.  Knight appealed the court's sentencing claiming that two of the charges were violated the double jeopardy clause.  She argued that the conspiracy to commit first degree burglary and the conspiracy to commit second degree robbery are multiple convictions for a single “unit of prosecution.”  The Court of Appeals agreed with Knight’s argument and reversed her conviction of conspiracy to commit first degree burglary.  The state of Washington petitioned for review arguing the charges were not in violation of the double jeopardy clause.  It also claimed that reversing one conviction in a plea agreement was improper without rejecting the whole plea agreement.  Washington’s Constitution has the same interpretation of the Fifth Amendment with the addition of a protection for defendants in which it “protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.”  With this being said, Knight was right in arguing her conviction was unconstitutional.

        The court’s findings about the violation of double jeopardy was just.  The Court of Appeals determined Knight’s two convictions punished her twice for one conspiracy which is a violation of the double jeopardy clause.  Knight’s guilty plea did waive some constitutional protection pertaining to factual guilt, it did not whatsoever waive any protection against double jeopardy. 

Benton v. Maryland (1969)

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/784/case.html

Case Briefing on the Fifth Amendment: Double Jeopardy

Title:

Benton v. Maryland (1969)

Case Facts:

Benton was tried for burglary and larceny in a Maryland state court.  The jury convicted him of burglary, but acquitted him of larceny.  Benton was sentenced to ten years in prison.  The grand and petit juries were selected under an invalid constitutional provision, so Benton was given the option of having a retrial.  Benton demanded a retrial and requested to dismiss the larceny count due to double jeopardy.  The court denied his motion and in the retrial Benton was found guilty of both charges and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.  

Legal Issue:

If Benton was tried and convicted once for burglary, was he placed twice in jeopardy in the retrial?

Decision:

Yes, the retrial was in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause and the court overturned the larceny conviction.

Reasoning:

The Supreme Court ruled the second trial was in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.  Since there is no protection against double jeopardy in Maryland’s Constitution, the court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause was included in the Fourteenth Amendment under the Due Process Clause.

Conclusion:

This case is a good example of the Double Jeopardy Clause being violated.  In the first trial, Benton was acquitted of larceny but in the second trial he was convicted of the same offense.  This trial is not like Blueford v. Arkansas where this case was a mistrial due to the jury being unable to agree on a verdict. Benton’s trial was never declared a “mistrial,” he simply wanted a retrial because the jury was selected under an invalid constitutional provision. However, if his trial was declared a mistrial and the court tried Benton again for larceny, the court would not be in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Blueford v. Arkansas

                 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1320

Supreme Court Case Blueford v. Arkansas began in February 2012.  The state of Arkansas charged Alex Blueford for the death of a one year old child.  The charge included capital murder, first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. The jury was presented with a verdict form that allowed the jury either to convict Blueford of one of the charged offenses, or acquit him of all charges. The jury unanimously voted against capital murder and first-degree murder but could not agree on a verdict for manslaughter and negligent homicide.  After a few hours, the jury announced they could not reach a verdict.  Since the jury could not agree on the last two charges, the judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial.  Arkansas requested to retry Blueford on all charges.  Blueford tried to get the capital murder and first-degree murder charges dismissed under the double jeopardy clause.  His motion was denied, because the Supreme Court held that the jury’s decision to acquit Blueford on capital and first-degree murder charges was “unofficial” and therefore, did not constitute a formal acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.  

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion that “The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against being tried twice for the same offense. The Clause does not, however, bar a second trial if the first ended in a mistrial.”  I agree with Chief Justice Roberts, the double jeopardy clause does not apply to cases that declares a mistrial.  Since the jury did not reach a verdict of manslaughter and negligent homicide, Blueford was not convicted or acquitted of capital and first-degree murder so the judge had to declare a mistrial.  Technically Blueford was not tried since there was no official acquittal or charge against him so the double jeopardy clause would not apply in this case. 

Case Background: November 28, 2007, Alex Blueford was babysitting his girlfriend’s one year old when the child suffered a severe head injury.  Blueford says he was on his bed taking a phone call when the child waved a lit cigarette near his face and startled him, knocking the child to the floor.  The child was rushed to the hospital and a few days later died from the injuries.

Roach v. Missouri

http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/RoachPetition.pdf

     June 28, 2013, Roach v. Missouri challenged the dual sovereignty exception to the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.  Under this dual sovereignty exception to the Constitution, an individual may be subjected to federal and state prosecutions for the same offense.  Roach v. Missouri argues the dual sovereignty doctrine is inconsistent with the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.  Back in 2010, Edward Roach was charged by the state for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.  The federal court also charged Roach for the same offense.  The state court dismissed the charges once Roach pleaded guilty to the federal charge.  Missouri Court of Appeals then reversed the trial court’s decision on the basis of the dual sovereignty doctrine.

    

     This case presented an opportunity to reexamine the basis of the dual sovereignty exception on the Double Jeopardy Clause. Unfortunately on October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Roach v. Missouri.  It’s unfortunate that the Supreme Court declined the case.  The Double Jeopardy Clause exists so us Americans are not tried for the same offense twice.  Dual sovereignty contradicts the Double Jeopardy Clause and should be ruled unconstitutional.

http://politix.topix.com/story/7133-double-jeopardy-and-the-zimmerman-trial-can-he-be-tried-all-over-again

George Zimmerman: Can He Be Tried Again?

Zimmerman was found not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter. Now, the Department of Justice wants to charge Zimmerman for a civil rights violation (hate crimes statute) in relation to the Trayvon Martin case. Isn’t this considered double jeopardy? The Federal government does not think so. And actually, the Double Jeopardy Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a way that will allow the State AND Federal government to charge someone for the same case because they are “separate sovereigns.” The clause has been interpreted incorrectly. When the Fifth Amendment was created, there was little overlap between the State and Federal government, so the Founders did not specify the Double Jeopardy Clause applies across sovereigns. As a result of this misinterpretation there is currently a case being appealed to the Supreme Court, Roach v. Missouri. This petition challenges the notion that double jeopardy does not apply to both State and Federal government simultaneously. Next post will go into greater detail about Roach v. Missouri.

Here’s a little background on the Trayvon Martin case:

The Zimmerman trial was a very controversial case over the past few years. In Sanford, Florida two years ago, George Zimmerman fatally shot 17 year old Trayvon Martin. According to Zimmerman, he was driving to the store when he saw someone acting suspicious so he called the police. Martin spotted Zimmerman and ran, so Zimmerman left his vehicle to see which direction he was running. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he should not run after Martin and the call was ended. Zimmerman states that he began walking back to his vehicle after hanging up with the dispatcher and that is when Martin approached Zimmerman. Martin punched Zimmerman in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman screamed for help but no one responded. Martin spotted the gun Zimmerman was carrying and tried to grab it. As both men were struggling for the gun, Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest. Zimmerman said it was self defense and the police could not find any evidence against him so they let him go.

 http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130526-man-arrested-in-murder-case-goes-free-because-of-double-jeopardy.ece 


                            A Murderer Goes Free Because of Double Jeopardy

     A recent case in double jeopardy happened about ten months ago in Dallas, Texas. A man named Sharone Sylvester Brown was accused of killing his girlfriend, but he couldn't be charged with murder because he was charged with misdemeanor assault against his girlfriend. His girlfriend, Sherry Whitacre was very weak from on going cancer treatments when this incident happened. On an April, night Brown and Whitacre were drinking when Brown got angry with Whitacre so he punched her in the head then picked her up and threw her outside onto the sidewalk. The police were called to the scene and Whitacre refused to be taken to the hospital. Brown was arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault. What the police didn't know was that Whitacre was taken to the hospital six hours after the assault and later died of an "unexplained death." In the meantime, prosecutors had no idea that Whitacre died, otherwise they would have waited for the autopsy results. Brown pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and served twenty days in jail. Six days after Brown was convicted, the medical examiner notified police that Whitacre's death was a homicide. The medical examiner found her cancer, a fractured thigh bone, and other medical problems were the cause of her death.  May 1, 2013, police arrested Brown on suspicion of murder. Police then realized they could not charge Brown with murder because they charged him with misdemeanor assault for the same case.
     Because of the Fifth Amendment, Brown could not be charged twice in the same case. This is an unfortunate case where double jeopardy may not be such a bad thing. Brown was sentenced to sixty days in jail but served twenty days for killing his girlfriend.