San Quentin prison inmate first to be released under new CA murder law

[Polishprince]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

Nice strawman.... not

That is a simplified explanation of how it really works. If a person involved in a crime has no idea one of his accomplices is even carrying a gun, he won't be charged when that gun is used. If, on the other hand, he does know a gun will be involved, he knows a potential murder can happen, and he will be charged with murder.

Not all murders involve a gun. Suppose the thugs decide to mug an old lady, one of them pushes her and she falls and kills herself? Or suppose she is so frightened, that she dies immediately of a heart attack.

Why shouldn't the whole crew be sat down in the electric chair?

 

[Kilroy2]

If teenagers are out throwing toilet paper in their gym coach's trees, and one of them goes nuts and kills someone, the rest aren't charged with murder.

Nice strawman.... not

That is a simplified explanation of how it really works. If a person involved in a crime has no idea one of his accomplices is even carrying a gun, he won't be charged when that gun is used. If, on the other hand, he does know a gun will be involved, he knows a potential murder can happen, and he will be charged with murder.

I think the OP is asking a legitimate question...how does one factually prove "they didn't know"?
You can't.
What criminal is going to say "oh yeah, I knew he had it"...knowing doing so condemns him/her?
And what criminal is NOT going to sau they didn't know?

Still you have to read what happen to that individual and determine if conviction is warranted or whether it needed to be amended. Under the previous law it said that

IF you commit a crime ( in his case robbery) and found guilty of that crime (robbery) then the individual is automatically deemed guilty of first degree murder (if a murder happen while committing the crime) without actually being charged with first degree murder and having a trial for first degree murder. He got 25 years to life without parole without even having a trail for murder.

California SB 1437 allows for those who did not kill anyone but were nevertheless sentenced to life imprisonment under the felony murder rule to petition the court for re sentencing.

So after spending 15 year in jail he was
re sentenced

I would assume that the judge considered the time he was in jail and what kind of an inmate was he. Considered that he was 18 years old at the time of the crime and from all accounts did not participate in the actual murder.

Whether he knew that there was a knife being used by the other perpetrator is one of those he said she said scenarios. The other witness committed the crime and he could be the only one who knows what was said.

IF the judge looks at all the evidence then I do not have a problem with this.

I see this as if you have a trial for a lessor crime because the odds of conviction are higher but you can get the same sentencing of the higher crime then that is an injustice and a easy way out for the state

You should be charged with the higher crime and face a court of your peers on that higher crime.

that just my opinion and I am glad that I am not a judge