Lizzie Borden Society Forum

It is said that an accused would not be trialed for the same crime for the second time. I imagine that he / she would not be trialed in the totally identical conditions, right? If new evidence emerge against an ex-accused, what would happen according to the American law?

If I am not wrong, the Borden case, and many others, are still theorically open, even though all the people related to these cases died long long ago. If some new very convincing evidence were found one day strongly against Lizzie, or someone else, what would the American juridical system do? I imagine that we can’t trial a dead person, can we? Yes, it would be possible that one day some new evidence can prove – I say prove – who is the killer, and the truth is known. But from the point of view of law, what would the court write in the document as the official, definitive conclusion of such a case?

If we can't judge a dead person, what would be the sense that a case of 150 years ago still remains open? We could one day find the truth, but from the point of view of the law, we can't pronounce a sentence against the guilty, who, being dead, could not be trialed, right?

Did I say some foolishness?

Double Jeopardy. If a person is tried of a crime and found not guilty-- it wouldn't matter if a video was found showing him/her doing the crime. They can't arrest and have another trial.

However, charges can be dismissed with or without prejudice. If it is dismissed WITHOUT prejudice the charges can be brought again if new evidence comes to light.

Usually this is used in civil cases only. Or if a prosecutor thinks they lack evidence for a conviction for some reason. For example-- a witness recants. I don't think this happens much in criminal cases though.

The defendant could certainly be tried for other crimes-- lets say new evidence comes to light that John Doe DID kill Sally Smith (and was acquitted) but the new evidence also shows he killed Sally's boyfriend Sam Johnson as well. He could be charged, tried and potentially convicted of Sam's death.

Thank you Aamartin.

My point is this: if we can't judge a dead person, how does a case old of more than 100 years remain still officially open? I don't understand the sense. It would be more comprenhensible for me if an unsolved case will be stocked (right word?) without a conclusion automatically after, for example, 80 years. It is always possible that the truth may be discovered out of the court, but this is another story. For me it makes no sense that such a case is still open if we couldn't judge anyone any more.

Great question, Franz!!! Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer for you.

However, thanks to Aamartin, we have an answer!

And another thing I don't understand well. Aamartin said: "If a person is tried of a crime and found not guilty-- it wouldn't matter if a video was found showing him/her doing the crime. They can't arrest and have another trial."

I agree that because of the lack of convincing evidence, even a very suspected defendant should be acquitted. But when new evidence shows, black on white, that an ex accused was indeed guilty, why in USA he / she could not be persuited anymore by the law? Yes, the case is the same, the defendant is the same, but the evidence are not. The law is established to garantee us the justice. In such a case, the justice is possible but we (the victim) can't have it. Is this law the same in all the states of U.S.A.?

I am ignorant about Chinese law as well, but I think in China, (and I think in a number of other countries), new evidence can permit to reopen a case and to have a new trial againt an ex defendant for the same crime (but I am not sure of what I am saying, I just think so.)

Here Franz, the following link may give you the answers you are seeking:

Double jeopardy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

Note: Wikipedia is not always the most reliable source for obtaining information, mainly because some things are added that do not have a footnote provided to back up the claim. However, the Double jeopardy page has a very long list of sources indicated under the heading of, Footnotes. You may want to click on anything in blue for more information regarding the contents of a sentence.

I hope this helps!

The American judicial system is vastly different than the policies of many European countries, and while I am not at all familiar with Chinese laws, I would daresay even more so than Chinese laws.

A criminal acquittal does not prevent a civil case from being brought.... OJ Simpson was found not guilty of the murders of his x-wife and the young man who was with her at the time--however, the families of the victims pursued a civil case and won monetary awards from Simpson. Whether or not these people ever collect the money is another matter all together. I think in many cases it is just a way for them to get some kind of justice......

Franz wrote:Thank you Aamartin.

My point is this: if we can't judge a dead person, how does a case old of more than 100 years remain still officially open? I don't understand the sense. It would be more comprenhensible for me if an unsolved case will be stocked (right word?) without a conclusion automatically after, for example, 80 years. It is always possible that the truth may be discovered out of the court, but this is another story. For me it makes no sense that such a case is still open if we couldn't judge anyone any more.

Franz, the trial took place and it resulted in a verdict of "Not Guilty" for Miss Borden. The case is therefore not "officially open." It is officially closed. It is only the public's interest in the case all these many years after that keeps it "open," and only in the sense that any topic of discussion with many possible opinions will remain open.

Miss Borden could not have been tried a second time for the same murders in her lifetime, even if new evidence had been discovered that would likely have convicted her in the first trial. That is part of the US Constitution -- the so-called "double-jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment. She could have been tried for some new crime that might have included evidence of possible interest interest to the first, but her attorneys would probably have argued for the inadmissibility of that evidence, because it might prejudice jurors who had not agreed with the jury in that first case. I'm no lawyer (and I don't even play one on TV!) but that seems realistic to me.

The case agaiinst Lizzie Borden is closed; she was acquitted, and cannot be tried again, even posthumously.

The U.S. Constitution also guarantees a defendant the right to face their accuser, so anyone that eliminates the possibility of a conviction in abstentia (although in looking it up on Google, I did find one really weird story about a Pope, who, during the Middle ages, dug up a dead Pope, propped him up in a court room, and tried him for a crime....really bizarre stuff.)

The case of who killed Abby and Andrew Borden, however, was never solved. There was no justice for two lives brutally taken...and so I would think THAT case is still "officially" open, no?

I've brought this up many times before, and few folks seem to be as fervently interested as I would hope, but the firm that represented Lizzie is STILL IN EXISTENCE and supposedly has Robinson's original case files locked away in some dusty old file cabinet. They cite some old law about confidentiality when asked why they won't reveal the contents of the Robinson's journals.

I think its hogwash, and if I were the head of the Historical Society in Fall River, I'd make a bigger splash about it (no disrespect intended towards Mr. Martin; his is an extremely kind and intelligent man.) Someone from the firm has been quoted as saying that the files don't contain any "smoking gun" but that is THEIR opinion, and may or may not be true.

I know I'm straying a tad off topic, but let's be honest, in order for us to be TRULY 'not ignorant" and in the interests of local history, I think those case files should be made available to the citizens of Fall River.

I 'm just afraid someone will destroy them before that happens...

I came back to this post because I realize I'd been half-wrong in my response to Franz. Thanks for picking up the slack, NancyDrew. Yes, while the case against Lizzie is closed, the case of the Borden murders remains unsolved: a true "Cold Case File." It would be fascinating to think those files could shed light on the car after all these years. It couldn't hurt to try, could it?

The Jack the Ripper murders occurred in London in 1888. Under British law, which is very similar to U.S law, the case remains officially open in case new evidence turns up. In the Ripper case, of course, the killer was never found. Although the London police stopped actively searching for the killer in 1892, the files (those that haven't been pinched or lost remain. That is because something, old diaries, a written deathbed confession might turn up, even if it's a billion to one chance against such an occurrence.
In my own country, Australia, terrible murders of three people occurred at Gatton in Queensland in 1898. In 1973 the police investigated a deathbed confession to these murders that had been reported to them. Although it turned out to be a false confession (the dates and evidence didn't match) the police still sought out elderly witnesses to the finding of the bodies and questioned them about what they could remember!