Is there a Lawyer in the house? Question about Colorado Shooting Charges

[RonInThornton]

Okay, first off let me say that if this guy is found guilty I think they should have a hotshot waiting there in the courtroom for him. As to my question though, he murdered 12 people but is being charged with 24 counts of First Degree Murder. As a layman and not knowing the ins and outs of the law this seems wrong to me. How is it possible to be charged for 2 murders from killing 1 person?

 

[flynnie]

The complaint charges Holmes twice for each of the 12 people killed and 58 people injured in the shooting. One set of charges accuses him of acting with "deliberation" and "intent." The other set accuses him of carrying out the crimes with "universal malice" and "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally."​

 

[SethO]

Basically, the way he killed those people violated 2 different laws and they are able to charge him under each law. At least that is the way I understand it.

 

[RonInThornton]

The complaint charges Holmes twice for each of the 12 people killed and 58 people injured in the shooting. One set of charges accuses him of acting with "deliberation" and "intent." The other set accuses him of carrying out the crimes with "universal malice" and "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally."​

Doesn't any act of murder pretty much indicate "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally"?

 

[Hawk]

Many times terms like that can determine whether or not the person will be eligible for the death penalty.

 

[robn311]

Here's a quote from a Reuter's article found at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-colorado-court-20120731,0,3604623.story:

"The complaint charges Holmes twice for each of the 12 people killed and 58 people injured in the shooting. One set of charges accuses him of acting with "deliberation" and "intent." The other set accuses him of carrying out the crimes with "universal malice" and "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally." The second set, charging him with indifference to life, may represent "a fallback theory" in case prosecutors fail to prove intent, said Marianne Wesson, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School and an expert in criminal law."

I'm not a lawyer; I study criminal justice and have worked with District Attorneys, but am not a legal expert. So take this for what it's worth. BUT:

My sense is that the prosecutor realizes this is a very big deal for the community and the general public at large. Thus, winning/losing this case in a certain way could make/break his legal and political career, and so the prosecution is trying to ensure a conviction. Really, the bigger issue will be whether or not they seek the death penalty. Not having to do with beliefs for or against it because those debates never get anywhere, but just as far as the standards, length and cost of the trial, and the difficulty in getting a capital conviction, that will be the crucial decision for the prosecutors. It will be interesting to follow how all this plays out. ​

 

[Hanks]

when you have a crime that falls under either of these circumstances:

universal malice" and "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally

you can charge a suspect twice for 1 crime....The above is usually reserved for acts of terrorism, hostage situations where lives are taken, or planned mass murders done at the same time.... this is done as a CYA move by the prosecution to almost gurantee that either 'base murder' or 'extreme murder' murder charge sticks and that there's no room for a lesser charge of manslaughter to be defended.

Basically, the way he killed those people violated 2 different laws and they are able to charge him under each law. At least that is the way I understand it.

 

[McRock]

I am a lawyer, and the Reuters article posted by robn311 pretty much explains it. A prosecutor may charge upon multiple theories for the same crime. In this case, one theory is that Holmes committed murder with "deliberation and intent." The other theory is that Holmes committed the murders with "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally." I'm not a Colorado lawyer, but I'm quite positive that Holmes CANNOT be convited on all 24 first degree murder charges. Holmes can only be convicted of 12 first degree murder charges if only 12 people died. Those convictions could come from either the "intent" group, or the "extreme indifference" group, or any combination of those theories of charges.

Now I can't say which group he'd fall under, but the prosecutor understands the extreme difficulty in proving intent. That difficulty isn't just in the Holmes case, but in any criminal case. For instance, let's pretend that Holmes wasn't going to use insanity as a defense. If he said "I just went in there to fire a whole lot of bullets at the movie screen and maybe wound a couple of people." At that point, from a legal stand point in some states, he had no intent to kill people. But he did have universal malice with extreme indifference to the value of human life. He still gets convicted of 1st degree murder.

Again, I'm giving the disclaimer that I'm not on top of Colorado law since I'm not a Colorado lawyer. But to get real technical with it, some states treat crimes of specific intent and general intent differently. Specific intent is where a person intended to do a specific action and intending a specific consequence. 1st degree murder is typically a specific intent crime. If insanity is proven, then Holmes could not have had the required specific intent. So again, that is why he is charged under multiple theories of 1st degree murder. If intent is not proven, then perhaps the prosecution can get a conviction under the alternative charge. There are a lot more issues and nuances the insanity defense brings up, but for purposes of the OP, I have limited the discussion to just the above.

Finally, the prosecutor must charge him with all alternative theories now, because once that jury is impaneled, double jeopardy kicks in, and the State won't be able to charge him for those murders of those 12 people again.

~Rock

 

[RonInThornton]

when you have a crime that falls under either of these circumstances:

universal malice" and "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally

you can charge a suspect twice for 1 crime....The above is usually reserved for acts of terrorism, hostage situations where lives are taken, or planned mass murders done at the same time.... this is done as a CYA move by the prosecution to almost gurantee that either 'base murder' or 'extreme murder' murder charge sticks and that there's no room for a lesser charge of manslaughter to be defended.

Thanks for explaining that Hanks and McRock. For someone not familiar with the ins and outs of the legal system it looked to me like something that could be the foundation of an appeal.

 

[spazzdog]

I would guess the Feds will also file charges at some point. This guy will never see the outside of a cell.

 

[McRock]

I would guess the Feds will also file charges at some point. This guy will never see the outside of a cell.

I'm not nearly as familiar with Federal Criminal law as I am state criminal law, but I'm not sure what the Feds could charge him with, other than terrorism and gun violations. But you are right, this guy will never see the light of day, unless his lawyer is super good and proves insanity. Given the letter he mailed to his psychiatrist, I don't think he has much chance of proving insanity.

~Rock

 

[JF]

Doesn't any act of murder pretty much indicate "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally"?

If someone is in my house trying to hurt my family, he's getting a kitchen knife to his spinal cord. I value human life. Not those kinds of humans however. "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally" would better fit the description of a man walking into a movie theatre and opening fire, or a man breaking into a house and killing all inside it to proceed to steal everything of value they own.

 

[tequila4kapp]

Law school grad, non practicing lawyer here...

An analogy would be when people are charged with lesser included offenses - 2 counts of murder, 2 counts of attempted murder, etc. That's not exactly the same thing but close enough for our purposes - the DA is including charges for a variety of levels of intent, the key component of culpability. The alternative would be to only charge for the most severe crime and risk not proving your case and allowing the person walk OR only charging for the lowest version of the crime, convicting the guy but having him get a ridiculously low penalty for the actual crime committed.

 

[CapC]

I hope he is locked in a cell for the next 60 years in isolation for the entirety. But I feel the prosecution will likely pursue capital punishment here. I feel sitting in isolation until he passes would be a worse punishment.

 

[RonInThornton]

If someone is in my house trying to hurt my family, he's getting a kitchen knife to his spinal cord. I value human life. Not those kinds of humans however. "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally" would better fit the description of a man walking into a movie theatre and opening fire, or a man breaking into a house and killing all inside it to proceed to steal everything of value they own.

Your example is self defense though, defending against someone breaking in and offering you harm as opposed being the one with bad intent to begin with

 

[threeboysdad]

I'm not nearly as familiar with Federal Criminal law as I am state criminal law, but I'm not sure what the Feds could charge him with, other than terrorism and gun violations. But you are right, this guy will never see the light of day, unless his lawyer is super good and proves insanity. Given the letter he mailed to his psychiatrist, I don't think he has much chance of proving insanity.

~Rock

Could the Fed's charge him with bomb making?

 

[spazzdog]

I think, under all the nifty stuff covered by the Patriot Act, he could be charged with domestic terrorism.

 

[RonInThornton]

I think, under all the nifty stuff covered by the Patriot Act, he could be charged with domestic terrorism.

Seems like it would make both the Feds and local prosecutors look like idiots charging him with that after they have all said there were no links to terrorism

 

[spazzdog]

I think that was referencing that other kind of terrorism... Supported by outside agencies. But hey, like I said... Just speculating.