Tim Masters-Double Jeopardy..Paging DaJudge

[Luv_Jeeps]

If he was already tried and convicted....then they let him out, then drop the charges, can he still be retried? Does double jeopardy come into play here?


(CNN) -- A Colorado prosecutor Friday asked a judge to dismiss the first-degree murder charge against Tim Masters, who spent nine years in prison until new DNA evidence indicated someone else might have committed the crime.

Court papers filed by District Attorney Larry Abrahamson cited "newly discovered" evidence, but took pains to state that evidence didn't clear Masters.

"While the newly discovered DNA evidence does not exonerate Timothy Masters, it clearly warrants a complete re-examination of all the evidence related to the murder of Peggy Hettrick," the court papers state.

The motion seeks dismissal of the charges "in the interest of justice." It points out the DNA testing used to uncover the new evidence wasn't available when Masters was investigated and tried.

On Tuesday a judge threw out Masters' 1999 murder conviction, and he was freed -- also "in the interest of justice."

Although the motion signals that Abrahamson is dropping the Masters case, he did not rule out future prosecution.

[Steve]

If he was already tried and convicted....then they let him out, then drop the charges, can he still be retried?

Pretty sure the answer is yes. Double jeopardy would be if he was found innocent at trial; he couldn't be tried a second time on the same charges. That's not what's happening here. Whether he in fact can or cannot be retried for this in the future depends on whether the charges are dismissed with or without prejudice.

[Luv_Jeeps]

Ok....so let's say they just drop the charges, which the media reported they would. Then how does he go about clearing his name? Does he just then have to live the rest of his life with the potential that in another 10 years they could try him again? Is there any other outcomes? I know that there is no statute of limitations on murder.

[Steve]

I'm sure daJudge or Zapp will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if they dismiss the charges with prejudice then those charges can't ever be refiled. No idea how they're doing it in this case. :shrug:

[Chris J]

It will depend if the charges are dropped w/o prejudice, but you can bet that if they are dropping the charges, then the DA's office has determined BEYOND a doubt that they are done with this guy. Can you imagine the backsplash if they were to release him, and then decide to go after him again?

[Luv_Jeeps]

Thanks....I just think it's interesting that this is played out (possibly) like that.
I obviously don't really know if he did/didn't kill Hettrick, but if he didn't and having to live with that threat over your head would suck....big time.

[Yota]

The judge threw out his conviction because there was evidence that, if it had been heard at trial, might have resulted in an acquittal. But the overturning of his conviction is not the same thing as an acquittal. It is as if he were never tried in the first place, essentially. He can be tried again but the fact that this new evidence has surfaced means that a conviction would much less likely - and that means that they probably would not retry him.

[Gunter]

The judge threw out his conviction because there was evidence that, if it had been heard at trial, might have resulted in an acquittal. But the overturning of his conviction is not the same thing as an acquittal. It is as if he were never tried in the first place, essentially. He can be tried again but the fact that this new evidence has surfaced means that a conviction would much less likely - and that means that they probably would not retry him.
this is a case where the defendant needs to be able to sue the prosecutor and the office he worked for, AND get his name cleared.at the city/county/state's expense.this prosecutor needs to be tried and sent to prison for his bad conduct and criminal behavior.discovery is right up there with the basics--you know,wear a suit to court,be on time,answer clearly and respectfully etc etc. no one who passes the bar exam cant have any excuse for withholding evidence he is bound by law to share by discovery.
and he just keeps going on and on making SURE to not apologize or recant,and making sure to still mention masters can still be a suspect.
what a douchebag the prosecutor is.

[jredmond]

this is a case where the defendant needs to be able to sue the prosecutor and the office he worked for, AND get his name cleared.at the city/county/state's expense.this prosecutor needs to be tried and sent to prison for his bad conduct and criminal behavior.discovery is right up there with the basics--you know,wear a suit to court,be on time,answer clearly and respectfully etc etc. no one who passes the bar exam cant have any excuse for withholding evidence he is bound by law to share by discovery.
and he just keeps going on and on making SURE to not apologize or recant,and making sure to still mention masters can still be a suspect.
what a douchebag the prosecutor is.

x2 on going after the prosecutor. The prosecutor should be disbarred for this stuff.

I do know that he will still be a suspect but with all the evidence piling up saying that he didn't do it this should not be much of an issue for him.

[DaJudge]

Pretty sure the answer is yes. Double jeopardy would be if he was found innocent at trial; he couldn't be tried a second time on the same charges. That's not what's happening here. Whether he in fact can or cannot be retried for this in the future depends on whether the charges are dismissed with or without prejudice.

I'm sure daJudge or Zapp will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if they dismiss the charges with prejudice then those charges can't ever be refiled. No idea how they're doing it in this case. :shrug:

The judge threw out his conviction because there was evidence that, if it had been heard at trial, might have resulted in an acquittal. But the overturning of his conviction is not the same thing as an acquittal. It is as if he were never tried in the first place, essentially. He can be tried again but the fact that this new evidence has surfaced means that a conviction would much less likely - and that means that they probably would not retry him.
Correct on all counts.

[Yota]

Correct on all counts.

Finally got one!

The sun shines on a dog's ass every now and then. :D