Are you suggesting that there was a trial and a verdict? The fact that charges were laid is not enough in most jurisdictions at least. The most we can say from what has been claimed is that charges were laid and then dropped. There was no trial and no verdict or we would know about it by now. What I would not be clear about in the US/CA is if a dismissal on insufficient evidence at a preliminary stage would be enough to invoke the rule. In most common law countries the answer is no provided that there is new evidence before the court.
I have been having a quick look over the Californian Penal Code, which is poorly written. Can Sam provide the answer to the following Qs: 1. Is there no crime of GBH in CA? If there is what is the max penalty? In many common law countries grievous bodily harm is an offence carrying life, and would not be covered by the CA statute of limitations.
2. How does CA law determine when an offence is "discovered" for the purpose of the statute of limitations? Is the focus here on facts, on charge or on facts reasonably giving rise to a charge. For instance, if the police new of an assault arising after threats by KFG, that would arguably not constitute the discovery of offences arising from the stomping of the head of KFG, criminal negligence of a number of parties etc... Many of these matters may only be discoverable from the video.
3. What is the effect of a victim asking police to drop charges in CA? What if the victim is disabled? What if there was an administrative error on the part of the police? In many jurisdictions the DPP can prosecute notwithstanding the wishes of the victim.
4. Would attempted murder fall under the statute of limitations?
I don't think anyone should assume the statute of limitations will apply. In many jurisdictions these matters are very much open to dispute. The video is very strong evidence of a number of crimes regardless of the full circumstances of the event and regardless of what happened to the victim, the dumpster, or whether the victim had been threatening at some prior time. Some posters are treating this as if it mattered whether this was a challenge match or if Blythe or Dennis were in any way morally justified in their actions. These matters may or may not be relevant to defences and or sentencing, but given that this is not a court of law the important thing to establish is whether there is a prima facie case. The important thing for the public is that all possible ways of avoiding an application of the statute of limitations can be examined so that the DPP can legitimately be encouraged to bring the case to trial, and is armed with proper arguments as to the statute of limitations (sadly we cannot always assume that a DPP will have this).
|