5 ms·
I'm genuinely curious about this. I skimmed the article and didn't see mention of this, but does the statute of limitations apply here?
by l30n4da5 4y ago
I'm genuinely curious about this. I skimmed the article and didn't see mention of this, but does the statute of limitations apply here?
- cmpb 4y agoFrom the article: >Arrest warrants can “go stale” due to the passage of time and changing circumstances, and one from 1955 almost certainly wouldn’t pass muster before a court, even if a sheriff agreed to serve it, said Ronald J. Rychlak, a law professor at the University of Mississippi. >But combined with any new evidence, the original arrest warrant “absolutely” could be an important stepping stone toward establishing probable cause for a new prosecution, he said.
- yieldcrv 4y agoyes, this needs to be done. I don't understand what the new evidence is though, I skimmed the further linked article
- cryptonector 4y agoGenerally there's no statute of limitations on murder.
- voisin 4y agoThis isn’t murder though. It would be perjury or something along those lines.
- cryptonector 4y agoEmmett Till was murdered.
- voisin 4y agoYes I understand, but the perpetrators were acquitted. So how could the woman be found guilty?
- Dracophoenix 4y agoAccording to the article, the warrant says kidnapping, a crime for which there is no statute of limitations. However, the district attorney for the case would have to show probable cause to enforce the arrest warrant. There's little chance of establishing that absent rediscovery of evidence or the existence of new witnesses from a crime that occurred nearly 70 years ago. There's also the issue of their being only one living witness relevant to the ordeal. And she is unlikely to say anything even if she were to possess a steel trap of a memory.