LA court to hand down decision on Miura's arrest Sept 26

Saturday 06th September, 04:40 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

8 Comments

Molenir at 01:10 AM JST - 7th September

Its hard to look at this and say it violates double jeopardy, that is if you know anything about the law. To put it simply, different jurisdictions, can try you for the same crime. This has been established repeatedly through many different precedents. Federal and State courts have done this many times. To put it simply, ex-post facto does not apply.
LIBERTAS at 08:32 AM JST - 7th September

"Ex-post facto does not apply." I agree. And the "But I am Japanese!" defense doesn't hold water either. They don't like it when it's not case by case, do they! Imagine, a clear, evenly applied principle of law. What a concept!
Molenir at 12:20 AM JST - 9th September

My understanding is, that this applies only to trials within the state. As in, you can't be tried in LA found not guilty, and then be brought up to San Francisco, and tried again for the same crime. It does not apply to trials conducted outside the state. As in Federal courts, or in another state court.
USARonin at 12:24 AM JST - 9th September

This could be a win-win since both California and Japan have the death penalty.

Gas or the rope. Either works.

USAR
techall at 05:32 PM JST - 10th September

Miura was convicted of the murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in Japan in 1994. Four years later, the Tokyo High Court overturned the conviction and the resulting sentence, because they weren't able to identify the sniper. This would not be a valid reason to overturn the conviction in California courts. The "post-facto" part comes from a 2004 regarding the time served counting agains a sentence imposed in California. If Miura had been aquited in Tokyo, California would not be able to re-try him due to a bi-laterial agreement.