I have read many of the reviews here which malign this movie, but I have not come across any which address what I am about to state.
Let me begin by saying I liked the movie. It was a fun romp and I don't regret watching it. I love a twist ending and this one was a doozy. I do however have some issues with the logic behind re-arresting the Crawford character for murder. The (suggested) murder charge would be for disconnecting his wife from life support if I am not mistaken. I can find no evidence for murder in this. For a murder charge to be valid in this instance would require evidence from the first trial - a trial in which Crawford had already been exonerated. I am not a lawyer, nor do I have special training in legal jurisprudence or trial procedure, but even with my limited knowledge of the law I don't believe ANYTHING relative to Crawford's first trial can be introduced as evidence in the proposed second one. He is protected under the codicils of double jeopardy and as far as I know the prosecution could not even intimate that he had anything to do with her condition prior to taking her off life support.
I'd love to hear a criminal trial lawyer's take on this.
Let me begin by saying I liked the movie. It was a fun romp and I don't regret watching it. I love a twist ending and this one was a doozy. I do however have some issues with the logic behind re-arresting the Crawford character for murder. The (suggested) murder charge would be for disconnecting his wife from life support if I am not mistaken. I can find no evidence for murder in this. For a murder charge to be valid in this instance would require evidence from the first trial - a trial in which Crawford had already been exonerated. I am not a lawyer, nor do I have special training in legal jurisprudence or trial procedure, but even with my limited knowledge of the law I don't believe ANYTHING relative to Crawford's first trial can be introduced as evidence in the proposed second one. He is protected under the codicils of double jeopardy and as far as I know the prosecution could not even intimate that he had anything to do with her condition prior to taking her off life support.
I'd love to hear a criminal trial lawyer's take on this.
