NationStates Jolt Archive

A man who shot a police officer in Philadelphia, in 1966, and has already served time for his actions--was arrested on Sunday for murder.

August 21, 2007 - It's a case of crime and possible re-punishment that is stirring debate in the City of Philadelphia.

This is one of the most extraordinary cases we've seen from a legal standpoint. Police would like to see him charged with murder but the district attorney's office is already indicating that they intend to review all of the evidence before making a decision.

By it's own admission, police officials concede this case is unprecedented. "This will be the first to our knowledge in the department's history," said Chief Inspector Joe Fox.

Back on November 27, 1966 Philadelphia officer Walter Barclay was responding to a burglary at a beauty parlor when he was shot and wounded in the 66-hundred block of North 5th Street. The shooting would end the 23-year-old rookie's career after barely one and a half years, leaving him paralyzed.

30-year-old William Barnes was fingered as the shooter and was arrested shortly thereafter. He would serve most of a 15-year sentence for aggravated assault with attempt to kill. But the career criminal would spend most of his life in and out of prison.

On Sunday, Officer Barclay passed away at St. Mary Medical Center in Bucks County.

Chief Inspector Fox said Tuesday night, "The medical examiner determined that the death was a result of complications stemming from him being shot and there subsequent ruling is that his death is a homicide." That ruling was made by a deputy coroner.

While to some it may seem to be a no-brainer that Barnes would be charged with homicide, criminal experts say an unbroken chain of medical evidence would have to be established before linking the death to the shooting.

Barnes has since turned his life around. He was noted in a recent City Paper profile for his work as a tour guide at Eastern State Penitentiary where he served time for his crimes. Sean Kelley from Eastern State Penitentiary said of Barnes, "One of the things that Bill was most effective about was the guilt that he carries especially for the officer that he shot."

Barnes who also lectures at Temple University at an urban studies class was unceremoniously arrested yesterday in connection with the case at his job here at this Shop Rite in Roxborough. At 71-years-old, those who know him say he has been trying to reform his life.

"He's been in prison more than he's been out and now he's trying right now at the very end of his life to make a little bit of good out of all the bad that he's experienced," says Kelley.

So far, Barnes has not been charged with a crime and it is not clear tonight at what point homicide investigators will forward the case to the district attorney's office so they can review the evidence and determine if they should proceed with murder charges.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5589977

Should he be charged with murder?

He served his time once.

He dies at 64 from complications of being shot 40 years earlier and they ruled his death a homicide? Fucking horse shit. God damn cops.

He dies at 64 from complications of being shot 40 years earlier and they ruled his death a homicide? Fucking horse shit. God damn cops.

It sounds like a shitty buddy cop movie. 64 years old, bet he was only a week from retirement too.

Sounds like double jeopardy. His one criminal action - shooting at the guy - already involved a hefty prison sentence, which he served. Now they're wanting to try him again for that same action.

Not sure how things are handled in the US, but over here you can only be tried once for a crime. He was tried, judged and punished for shooting at someone. To punish him again goes against one of the basic principles of justice.

Maybe he is an evil supergenius who shoots to kill with a 40 year delay.


If not, he shouldn't be charged with the murder.

Wouldn't this be covered by a double jeopardy type law. In that he has already been prosecuted for his actions and the evidence already heard. And what about the statute of limitations or whatever the US version is. The action was 40 years ago...

Wouldn't this be covered by a double jeopardy type law. In that he has already been prosecuted for his actions and the evidence already heard. And what about the statute of limitations or whatever the US version is. The action was 40 years ago...

It's a double jeopardy thing, there's no statute of limitations on murder.

i thought there was a "year and a day" clause that decides when dying as a result of an injury can be charged back to the person who caused it.

certainly there should be a "40 years and a day" clause.

A man who shot a police officer in Philadelphia, in 1966, and has already served time for his actions--was arrested on Sunday for murder.



http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5589977

Should he be charged with murder?

No. Theoretically, we have a system of justice in this country, not a system of revenge, and arresting him for murder now would be nothing more than petty revenge. Besides, rehabilitation is rare enough in our system--you want to send a message to those handful of prisoners thinking about remaking their lives that says "we're gonna fuck with you once you're out?" Yeah, that's smart.

Wouldn't this be covered by a double jeopardy type law. In that he has already been prosecuted for his actions and the evidence already heard. And what about the statute of limitations or whatever the US version is. The action was 40 years ago...

It's not a double jeopardy thing because it's two different crimes, in the eyes of the law. Being charged with the same crime in both state and federal courts is closer to double jeopardy than this is.

i thought there was a "year and a day" clause that decides when dying as a result of an injury can be charged back to the person who caused it.

I think there is in the UK (there was something about it recently... Someone was in a coma - thanks purely to modern medicine - for over a year before dying?), but know not about the US.

It does seem a bit like overkill to me. What is the ratinal behind it, would the CBS(whatever the American version of it is) let it go ahead?

It's not a double jeopardy thing because it's two different crimes, in the eyes of the law. Being charged with the same crime in both state and federal courts is closer to double jeopardy than this is.So you're saying it's not double jeopardy, Khadgar says it's not a statute of limitations and wiki also says it's probably not a year-and-a-day thing as most states have abolished that law.

Hmm... say he was convicted for murder then would he have been deemed to have served 15 years of the sentence already (concurrent sentencing or something), and then be paroled for good behaviour due to his actions in the community since/currently?

I think there is in the UK (there was something about it recently... Someone was in a coma - thanks purely to modern medicine - for over a year before dying?), but know not about the US.wiki says that law was abolished in the UK with the Law Reform Act 1996. It also says that were this to have happened in the UK then the murder trial could only commence with the consent of the Attorney General.

Not sure how things are handled in the US, but over here you can only be tried once for a crime. He was tried, judged and punished for shooting at someone. To punish him again goes against one of the basic principles of justice.

In the US, you can't be charged twice either. It's called double jeopardy.

Wouldn't this be covered by a double jeopardy type law. In that he has already been prosecuted for his actions and the evidence already heard. And what about the statute of limitations or whatever the US version is. The action was 40 years ago...

There is no statute of limitations on murder, but I do agree that this sounds like double jeopardy.

A man who shot a police officer in Philadelphia, in 1966, and has already served time for his actions--was arrested on Sunday for murder.



http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5589977

Should he be charged with murder?

No. First of all, I doubt he can be. He was already tried and convicted of the crime. He can't be tried again. Second of all, 40 years?!? He lived his life for 40 years. That has to be the world's slowest murder plot in history. :p

No. First of all, I doubt he can be. He was already tried and convicted of the crime. He can't be tried again. Second of all, 40 years?!? He lived his life for 40 years. That has to be the world's slowest murder plot in history. :p

I thought he was already tried and comvicted of agrevated assult? How can he have been tried and convicted of homiced, when the guy was not dead?

I thought he was already tried and comvicted of agrevated assult? How can he have been tried and convicted of homiced, when the guy was not dead?

His crime was shooting the cop. The charge depended on the circumstances of the shooting and the outcome. Perhaps after forty years, the charge has changed, but not the crime. He's already served his time for the crime.

So you're saying it's not double jeopardy, Khadgar says it's not a statute of limitations and wiki also says it's probably not a year-and-a-day thing as most states have abolished that law.

Hmm... say he was convicted for murder then would he have been deemed to have served 15 years of the sentence already (concurrent sentencing or something), and then be paroled for good behaviour due to his actions in the community since/currently?
All depends on the judge and jury. I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor on this one, even if I were a lawyer. Voir dire would be a bitch, if nothing else.

His crime was shooting the cop. The charge depended on the circumstances of the shooting and the outcome. Perhaps after forty years, the charge has changed, but not the crime. He's already served his time for the crime.

That makes sense, then I guess he just can't be huh.

A man who shot a police officer in Philadelphia, in 1966, and has already served time for his actions--was arrested on Sunday for murder.



http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5589977

Should he be charged with murder?

I really hate to say this but no since he has already served time for aggravated Assault.

No, but that would make an interesting Law and Order episode.

That makes sense, then I guess he just can't be huh.

The theory, however, is that the death made the original action a completely separate crime, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the theory hold up, if the prosecutor pushes it. We can argue the fairness of it all day long, but I think the theory would hold up on appeal.

That makes sense,

Sorry. It was an accident. I'll try not to make it a habit. :)

There is no statute of limitations on murder, but I do agree that this sounds like double jeopardy.I think Nazz is right in saying it is not double jeopardy. Since he was charged for Aggravated assault, and now he might be charged with murder - two different charges, and hence not covered by double jeopardy.

I think Nazz is right in saying it is not double jeopardy. Since he was charged for Aggravated assault, and now he might be charged with murder - two different charges, and hence not covered by double jeopardy.

Two different charges of the same crime though. That's the thing. In reality, the dude did not kill the cop.

The worse I can see here is Involuntary Manslaughter and the statue of limitations ran out on that years ago.

Two different charges of the same crime though. That's the thing. In reality, the dude did not kill the cop.It's not the same crime though. He was first convicted of aggravated assault. Later (much later) the victim died as a result complications arising from the assault. In essence, had medical care not been so advanced then the victim might not have lived so long, and had the victim not been shot then he would have lived longer and died for a different reason. At least this is what the coroner believes.

If they can prove that the shooting was what directly caused his death, then I think he should be prosecuted for murder. I don't see how this conflicts with double jeopardy because he was never charged with murder in the first place. As the sentence for the original aggravated assault with intent to kill would have been shorter than the sentence for murder, I think he should be sent to prison. However, I think that the time he already served for the original crime should be deducted from any new sentence.

It's not the same crime though. He was first convicted of aggravated assault. Later (much later) the victim died as a result complications arising from the assault. In essence, had medical care not been so advanced then the victim might not have lived so long, and had the victim not been shot then he would have lived longer and died for a different reason. At least this is what the coroner believes.

However, he can not be charged with murder because he did not have intentions of killing the cop. That's where murder 2 and 3 (voluntary and involuntary manslaughter) comes in and the statue of limitations is out on those charges.

The prosecutor will not pursue this and if he does and the prosecution wins, the appeals court will probably toss it out.

However, he can not be charged with murder because he did not have intentions of killing the cop. That's where murder 2 and 3 (voluntary and involuntary manslaughter) comes in and the statue of limitations is out on those charges.

The prosecutor will not pursue this and if he does and the prosecution wins, the appeals court will probably toss it out.Sorry, I didn't write out the full original conviction. In the quote in the OP it says he was convicted of aggravated assault with attempt to kill. Attempt normally implies intent. I think that's probably enough for first degree murder. I guess it could also be covered by felony murder.

I hope the prosecutor doesn't pursue this though.

Two different charges of the same crime though. That's the thing. In reality, the dude did not kill the cop.

The worse I can see here is Involuntary Manslaughter and the statue of limitations ran out on that years ago.The issue is whether or not the state can prove that the original action caused the death of the cop. If the state can prove that--and they'd have a tough case to make--then they can charge him. It's no different from a situation where a bar fight results in first an assault charge, and then a murder charge on top of it if the victim dies after the first charge is made. Neo Art is really the person to talk to about this though.

The issue is whether or not the state can prove that the original action caused the death of the cop. If the state can prove that--and they'd have a tough case to make--then they can charge him.

To do that then they need the cop's medical records. At least that is according to my mom.

It's no different from a situation where a bar fight results in first an assault charge, and then a murder charge on top of it if the victim dies after the first charge is made.

That assumes that the case did not go to trial yet.

Neo Art is really the person to talk to about this though.

I will agree with you there.

Is it a homicide? Yes. Should he go to jail? No. Let him keep giving back to the community, and he should be forced to pay for the police officers funeral.

Legally, sure. It'll probably hold up. But morally or ethically? Get real. The guy paid his debt. He became a productive member of society. Isn't that what we want from ex-cons? Perhaps some of our prosecuters need to pay more attention to the spirit of the law and quit worshipping the letter of it.

I don't know about the validity of the legal argument (it certainly sounds iffy, at least to me, but that doesn't really mean much), but I certainly think they'd be sending the wrong message by prosecuting him again. I'd rather they voluntarily chose not to charge him.

But yeah, paging Neo Art.