Some satisfied, others outraged with verdict for immigrant's death

I don't mean to burst your bubble, Matlock, but it used to be called "acting in concert", now it's available via accomplice or accessory liability, and they've got in pretty much in all 50 states, the UK, Canada etc etc etc. (and very definitely in Pennsylvania, which is the relevant one here).

It's not a defense to accomplice liability, btw, to cite the lack of principal liability. So you can convict two accomplices without having to prove sole causation attributable to any one of the two.

Maybe you should take some CLE's or something....the bottom line is that your instruction here was reversible error.

 

In a mob scene, it would be very difficult to prove accomplice liability as to any one defendant. In Texas, they would have to prove that the specific individual encouraged the acts that specifically led to death.

What you probably meant to talk about is felony murder. If somebody dies during your commission of a felony (in this case, aggravated battery would suffice), then you can be held liable for murder as though you were the one that ruptured his skull. That problem with prosecuting that is that you may run into a proof problem. That appears to be what happened here.

This is why I always hated criminal law. People that you know should go away for a while will end up walking. I only practiced criminal law a little bit, and that was obtaining occupational licenses for people that had their license revoked for DWI.

Thank God I found a career in the Bankruptcy Courts. I really hated the cattle call of the Harris County Criminal Courts.

 

I'll put my money on Sam. You have roused me enough to ask a criminal lawyer in my building. Not enough to do some legal research. My prediction is that there is some charge that would stick and put away most, if not all those those kids for quite a while.

 

Couldn't they charge all those kids with something? Maybe not murder, but something?

 

Legal wrangling on why they couldn't convict to one side, does anyone disagree that some miscarriage of justice has transpired here? These guys are guilty of some crime related to the death of the man and should have been punished in some form or fashion.

 

Felony murder is similar and related to acting in concert/joint and several liability - but again it's not necessary here.

All you have to do is prove acting in concert/accomplice liability to commit GBH and that gets you second degree murder - you don't need to show which bullet or whatever killed the person. Felony murder is a relative of this but not absolutely necessary here.

In fact, you can charge acting in concert/accomplice/accessory even where there was no intent to harm the victim. Innocent bystander caught in a gang shootout, for example, you could charge both shooters with 2nd degree murder or manslaughter on an acting in concert theory regardless of who fired the fatal shot.

 

Miscarriage of justice? Yes.

Inconsistent with the U.S. legal system? That's what's up in the air.

Every similar case I've remembered (I admit not knowing much, but swear to have read and heard of similar crimes before) has the same cloudy issues.

Googling brawl and fatal and acquit has a lot of hits. There's also stuff on "felony mob action"...it's interesting to say the least.

 

A charge of aggravated assault probably would have been successful in this case. A jury is going to be loathe to tag anybody with a murder charge I would think.

 

Its not debatable, some people just lack common sense.

 

But isn't that the problem everyone's harping on here? You have murder in public in front of eyewitnesses, and they can't charge the defendants for it?

It doesn't get any more F'ed up than that.