Help charges dismissed now re-filing with no new evidence!

[andoiscool]

I live in Pittsburgh, PA. I was dismissed of all charges on a DUI, Gun charges, and simple assault today. The arresting officer and also the victim didn't show for my preliminary trial. the DA told my lawyer that they can dismiss all charges. My lawyer decided it was OK and my charges were dismissed. My Lawyer and the DA stated with this dismissal, the aressting officer can re-file the charges and I will be back at square one, Warrant for my arrest, reprocessing and Re-Post of Bail. then Back to Preliminary trial. Can this be and is this legal? I thought once charges are dropped the prosecution and accusee's cannot re-file. Is there not and boundries?

 

[racer72]

Depends on the type of dismissal you recieved. If the charges were dropped without predjudice, the charges can be filed again. If it was with predjudice, charges cannot be filed again.

 

[Florid-aise]

It is important for you to know this. It is important who drops the charges. If the State drops the charges, it means they feel they do not have enough evidence to obtain a conviction...yet. Which means the State can drop the charge, keep gathering evidence, and at a later date when the State feels they have enough evidence to obtain a conviction, can re-file a second complaint and re-instigate a prosecution based on the same event that the first charge was dropped from.

Should the court dismiss the charge. It means that jeapordy attached to the criminally accused and as a result of that. No prosecution could begin a second time as it would violate a person's constitutional rights not to twice be placed in jeapordy of being tried twice for the same criminal episode.

 

[nanaII]

Then I have an important question...

I have a question regarding this. Say a person was charged with several different counts within one criminal charge on, say, January 1. Then on January 5, a Judge makes a note in the criminal record "Adjudication: NOT FILED" on one of the counts. What exactly does this mean? Does this mean this particular count was completely dropped from any/all further proceedings?

 

[Bravo8]

Actually, the dismissal of the charges is a result of the officer and victim not appearing. Even though the court dismissed the charges, the prosecution can re-file the charges. It's not double jeopardy.

 

[Florid-aise]

Actually, the dismissal of the charges is a result of the officer and victim not appearing. Even though the court dismissed the charges, the prosecution can re-file the charges. It's not double jeopardy.

No prosecuting attorney that I have ever met has any constitutional, executive, statutory, or any other authority,(nor would he/her have jurisdiction to do so) to sign any order resulting in a sentence (as opposed to an arrest warrant) of incarceration being imposed nor enforceable (thusly having no jurisdiction to honor same) upon any human being now living or having ever lived.

In stark contrast, I know of not one single judge who cannot.

Therefore, once a JUDGE dismisses a case, the accused has exposed himself to the mere possibility of having become incarcerated. Just the exposure to the possibility of incarceration (thus, the loss of liberty) results in the attachment of possible loss of liberty of the criminally accused for double jeapordy purposes.

Should PA courts ignore or overlook the U.S. Constitutional rights of the criminally accused to never be twice placed in jeapordy for the same criminal charge based on the same alleged criminal event as having been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction over the subject matter, now would be the time for you to press forward with your case in order to challenge PA controlling caselaw on the subject.

Your comments in opposition, Bravo8?

 

[Bravo8]

The fact that the defendant has simply appeared in court does not place them in "jeopardy of life or limb", as stated in the 5th Amendment. Nor does it necessarily place the defendant in jeopardy of incarceration, as is now the standard under common interpretation.

Pennsylvania law, 18 Pa. C.S. 109 prohibits the second prosecution for a violation of the same statute as an earlier prosecution if the second prosecution is arising from the same facts as the first, when:

1. The former prosecution resulted in an aquittal.

2. The former prosecution was terminated after an indictment had been found.

3. The former prosecution resulted in a conviction.

4. The former prosecution was improperly terminated after the first witness was sworn.

Barring any of the above enumerated circumstances, the defendant was not placed in jeopardy of criminal sanctions or punishment, and therefore the doctrine of Doubel Jeopardy does not apply.