Murder Charge 30 Years Later

Big Guy · August 9, 2014

In 1981, there was an attempt made on the life of then President Reagan. While Reagan survived, his press secretary James Brady was shot resulting in brain damage. Earlier this week Mr. Brady died and the medical examiner ruled it a homicide resulting from the 1981 shooting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/james-bradys-death-ruled-homicide-by-dc-medical-examiner/2014/08/08/686de224-1f41-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html

This sets an interesting precedent; How long after a death can the death be ruled a murder?

For example, how long after a traffic accident can the eventual death of an individual be assigned to that accident with the legal and financial consequences?

Should there be a limit on the time over which a homicide, murder or manslaughter charge can be applied after the cause of that death?

Hal 9000 · August 9, 2014

Maybe there should be some limit (i don't know what that limit would be), but I think 30 years sets a bad precedent.

Bob Macadoo · August 9, 2014

In 1981, there was an attempt made on the life of then President Reagan. While Reagan survived, his press secretary James Brady was shot resulting in brain damage.

I'm not huge on jurisprudence but wouldn't the murder charge have to have been filed at the first trial where he was given the looney bin pass?

eyeball · August 9, 2014

It's all rather moot given Hinckley was found NCR due to his medical condition.

Peter F · August 9, 2014

Coroners can rule deaths to be homicides but they have no power to lay murder charges. That power belongs to others.

guyser · August 11, 2014

Should there be a limit on the time over which a homicide, murder or manslaughter charge can be applied after the cause of that death?

Big can of worms if there is one put on.

A whole bunch of guards from the 40's kind of wish there was.

Bonam · August 11, 2014

Should there be a limit on the time over which a homicide, murder or manslaughter charge can be applied after the cause of that death?

A time limit, no. But if the suspect has already been tried for the act (i.e. as assault or attempted murder), then they should not later be tried again if the victim dies years later. To me this seems like a simple application of the principle of double jeopardy.

Peter F · August 12, 2014

Well, 30 odd years after being shot, I'd have a difficult time saying the gunshot killed him.

kimmy · August 13, 2014

If someone deliberately inflected someone else with AIDS, and the victim lived for many years before succumbing to the disease, I think most people would agree that it was murder.

Take a really ridiculous hypothetical: a James Bond villain implants a bomb in someone's chest, and it has a 30-year timer on it, I think it most people would agree that it was murder.

I don't know the specifics of Mr Bradley's injuries, but it's plausible that he could have lived for many years before dying from the effects of the injuries. For example, suppose fragments from the bullet were in his brain and it was deemed that it was more dangerous to remove the fragments than let them stay. Eventually a fragment shifts and inflicts a new injury that kills him. Or suppose that the gunshot inflicted some sort of medical condition that carries an increased health risk and much later killed him. I think there are situations where it's plausible to say he died from the gunshot but took a long time to die.

-k

Peter F · August 13, 2014

It would be interesting to know what the immediate cause of Mr Bradys death was. If he was struck down by a speeding bus would cause of death still read 'gunshot wound to the head'? On the other hand if the injuries caused by the gunshot 30 years ago resulted in slow deterioration and eventual failure of certain bodily functions - then yeah I guess the coroner would be correct.

Big Guy · August 13, 2014

Where this becomes an interesting issue is with members of the military. In North America, there are certain death benefits that soldiers (and their families) are entitled to if the soldier dies as a result of combat. What then is the limitation of the time between the injury and the death?

This question has come up frequently in our gatherings in the Legion when another vet dies.

Does a suicide due to PTSD qualify as a combat related death and the entitlements that come with that?

What about the old vets? The ones who died at a relatively old age but were badly wounded in the war. Should they be entitled to those benefits since it is obvious that the wounds would have to have had some affect on his/her health?

Other older vets have to retire from the work force earlier because of physical problems. What if those problems were related to wounds suffered during conflict or when the soldier was a member of the forces?

The time of a death is a fairly easy thing to establish. The actual cause may be very difficult - especially where $millions in entitlements may be in play.

That is why I find the Brady situation interesting and perhaps precedent setting.

Bob Macadoo · August 13, 2014

It would be interesting to know what the immediate cause of Mr Bradys death was. If he was struck down by a speeding bus would cause of death still read 'gunshot wound to the head'? On the other hand if the injuries caused by the gunshot 30 years ago resulted in slow deterioration and eventual failure of certain bodily functions - then yeah I guess the coroner would be correct.

Thats exactly what happened. Mr. Brady never recovered from the injury, he just slowly, constantly deteriorated. Its why he was the face of "his" bill; no one would deny his injury. Is Ms. Gifford from Arizona in the same condition.