Man faces murder charge after victim dies 30 years later

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2005/October/theworld_October409.xml§ion=theworld&col=

NEW YORK — A New York man who served three years in jail for shooting a teenager in 1973 has been arrested for murder following his victim’s death more than 30 years after the event, prosecutors said yesterday.

Ralph Alini, 54, was arrested on Thursday and held in custody prior to his formal arraignment on murder charges, said Sandy Silverstein, spokesman for the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office.

Alini and another man were convicted of shooting Jose Colon, then 15, during a riot between Hispanics and Italians in Brooklyn in 1973. Colon was left paralysed by the incident. snip

However, when Colon died last year at the age of 47, medical examiners determined that his death was the result of the shooting more than 30 years ago, and so Alini was re-arrested.

:popcorn:

This discussion will reach unparalleled heights of vitriol and legal absurdities on both sides...

Pass that popcorn.

I'm ready for law and order finger-wagging and common sense eye-rolling. It's gonna be a doozy.

:shrug: short lived

Some prosecutors will go to any lengths to pave the path to higher office with as many corpses as possible. This case should be thrown out.

as the result of being shot? :shrug:

The prosecution shouldn't have get a chance to try him again on another chanrge.

Once convicted of a crime thats it.. no do-overs.

what if he died 5 months after the conviction... or a day?

It would be much easier to prove it was direct result of the shooting, but 30 years later?

for murder 1. (lesser charges, yes - but not murder 1 - as it's a "capital" offense) So chances are the man has now been charged with murder 1.

Look up USC (United States Code) 18, statute of limitations - they list the exceptions...one being a capital offense (murder 1) and it's been argued that it applies even without the death penalty as an option.

then think you'd have a hard time charging him with the murder

but he was found guilty and that's why they can legally charge him with murder now

the cause of death will certainly be the single most significant piece of evidence

do you object the fact that cops face trials in local jurisdictions and get acquitted of criminal charges and then get brought up on civil rights charges in federal court. that has happened and i agree with that too.

You're talking about Civil vs Criminal Trials. You cannot be tried twice for the same offense in a criminal trial. But, you can be sued...hence the OJ verdict. A verdict I wholeheartedly disagreed with, as he had been acquitted.
I find it interesting that you bring up the police. Do I detect an anti-police bias on your part. Hope you're never robbed.

i'm talking about criminal violation of federal civil rights

but that really isn't the point. the crime of assault and murder stem from the same incident but are not the same crime.


what if he robbed a a store and kidnapped the clerk. he's convicted of the robbery but the clerk is never found. then years later the clerk's remains are found.


and btw... you never answered how you would respond if you or maybe your child were the victim.

That's a strawman approach to the question. As Mario Cuomo has said numerous times, "There is a difference between personal justice and public justice." As my father, a former federal judge will tell you, "A trial is supposed to be about the law. Nothing more, nothing less."
Your attempt to try and play on my emotions will NOT work. I've heard that arguement too many times from people and I still do not allow myself to get caught up in it.

BTW my apologies to you. I misread your opening sentence. I read it so fast that I thought you said Civil Trial, not Civil Rights Trial. My apologies on that point.

after an acquittal, or for that matter a conviction, on other charges? do you think that is wrong?

I think it's an attempt by the state to get another bite at the apple. I am also aware of the fact that there are places in this country where it depends on "Who gets killed and who does the killing" that is a problem.
My problem is that there is too much opportunity for abuse on the part of the government, especially since the bar for conviction on hate crimes in a federal trial is much lower than it is, for say a murder conviction at the state level.

;)

btw... what about the store clerk?

not only do you not have a clue as to what you are talking about but you like putting words in peoples mouths too? :shrug:

There seems to be a lot of people at DU, who when something bad happens, use the police as their example of the negative or just assume the police are automatically guilty. If you're not one of them. I applaud you for your open-mindedness.

bush to be held accountable for is crimes :eyes:

if a crime is committed justice should be done PERIOD. i don't care who does it. and btw, i have been robbed twice. once my apt was broken into and once i was mugged. and unfortunately there was no justice in either case

Now you're getting all emotional. I said there is an inherent anti-police bias on this site. The use of crimes committed by the police made me ponder the possibility that you MIGHT be anti-police. I also said, "If you do not have this bias you should be applauded."
If you don't have the bias, then why are you getting mad?????? I acknowledged that you might not be biased.

what about the civil rights violation scenario?

Is there a statute of limitations on murder that I'm not aware of?

How much time do you think there should be between the act and the target's death, before society decides it's not important enough to try the defendant?

Did he die from an infection? If so, could he have aquired an infection even if he hadn't been paralyzed? Whatever the cause, heart failure, liver failure, the same applies.

It will be difficult to prove the cause of death was a direct result of the shooting, 30 years later, IMO.

you need some evidence to sustain the charge and then you need to prove your case to a jury. two different things

My point was that it's going to be difficult to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the cause of death, 30 yr later, was a direct result of the shooting.

it will be the single most important aspect of the case, but it shouldn't prevent the charge if there is a medical report that suggests the cause of death stemmed from the gunshot wound

I would be very interested to see additional evidence and how the shooting killed him 30 years later.

It's hard to determine at this point, but I can imagine a lot of legal wrangling.

I think this is ridiculous.

would have had to have died within a year of the original shooting for the shooter to be charged with murder. Not sre what the statutory provisions are in New York. In any event there are certainly many issues including double jeopardy and causation - to be raised. The standard of evidence in a criminal trial calls for proof beyond a reasonable doubt to render a conviction. That would certainly seem to be in doubt due to the passage of time.

Lock him in a deep, dark hole and throw away the key.

chances are that if the victim had died while in the hospital following the injury & the criminal had been convicted on some kind of death charge, he would have served time & been out many decades ago. I would think the shooter's record since this crime could be considered (learned his lesson & made good). Not excusing the criminal here, just thinking about these unusual circumstances.

which means he recklessly acted in a manner which endangered others, hence the shooting of Mr.Colon. This new charge is not double jeopardy, it is a new charge as Mr. Alini's actions did ultimately cause the death of the victim. It will probably get reduced to manslaughter but its a good bet the ME can show that the death was a direct result of the original action.

Didn't her already get tried once for the crime? Did the victim get elad poisoning or something? Smells fishy.