Legal hypothetical: Guilty of one of two crimes

[jack]

Note: I'm merely curious. I have no intention of doing this.

Suppose it's certain that I'm guilty of one of two crimes, but it's uncertain *which*. And there's no overlap. Is there any legal mechanism which will convict me of one-or-the-other? Can I be tried and sentenced to the lesser sentence? What happens?

The best example I can think of is I shoot someone with a hypodermic gun, then send the body abroad in my friend's boat. I'm found with two ampouls, A fatal, B not. If I used A, I'm guilty of murder (and tampering with a corpse, etc). If I used B, I'm guilty of kidnapping (and assault). Can I be convicted of either of the major crimes, given that it's not certain I committed it?

I think in most jurisdictions I can be convicted for assault if I also murder, but if I'm tried for murder that takes precedence. So I might get any lesser charge which certainly happened.

Am I obliged to testify? I thought the current situation in the UK was that it could be held against me if I don't testify, but that it's not automatic guilt, it's just that if it makes me look guilty it can be evidence against me, but here it's not conclusive.

Comments

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. That's interesting -- you don't even need any complicated planning, you just need to be a twin.

Can't the other twin be compelled to testify that it wasn't him, somehow? Immunity?

[edith-the-hutt.livejournal.com]

At which point the immune twin just says, "Yup, it was me. And you can't try me for it. Suckers!"

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Oh, sorry, it sounded like they knew which one was which, just couldn't prove it.

I'm vague on the details of immunity. Rather, can't they just trial A, and summon B to testify that he wasn't at the scene. But I was thinking of immunity to *other* charges, in case B was committing a crime elsewhere, or conspiring with A to conceal the crime, or so on.

Maybe a "not guilty" plea would be enough? :)

[cornute.livejournal.com]

Well, he did testify that it wasn't him. He didn't have an alibi, as I recall, though-- so, that really wasn't enough to prove that he couldn't also have done it.

If I am wearing a full-body Bugs Bunny costume and at a convention with 3 other Bugs Bunny costume wearers, it's not enough to convict me of something to say that someone did it while wearing the costume (provable, say by videotape) and the other three say they didn't do it but have no way to prove they didn't.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see. I was thinking the other one wouldn't have been convicted anyway, so his word would be as good as that of anyone who saw him. Though I suppose whatever we're in "reasonable doubt" territory here :)