<story><title>Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime</title><url>http://columbialawreview.org/ham-sandwich-nation_reynolds/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>gnoway</author><text>I was just thinking about this. Why do we allow multiple charges per trial?&lt;p&gt;What would happen if we only allowed one charge per trial, and it was a prosecutor&amp;#x27;s job to determine (along with existing duties) which one of the possible charges would be tried? Double jeopardy would be prevented by requiring submission to the court of all considered charges; attempting to bring a new charge for an already-adjudicated matter would be handled like a failure to disclose exculpatory evidence is today - the charge would be thrown out and the prosecutor would be reprimanded however that happens today.</text></item><item><author>lessnonymous</author><text>I&amp;#x27;d go further. The jury must convict on &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; presented charges or none. Throwing 900 charges at someone, as the article says, is a way to force a plea bargain from someone who may well be innocent. (And removing a charge after failing the plea bargain tactic, but before court can&amp;#x27;t be allowed either.)</text></item><item><author>bostik</author><text>In some of my not-entirely-sober states of mind I have sometimes thought of ways to eliminate prosecutorial overreach. (It&amp;#x27;s a problem outside US too.)&lt;p&gt;A very simple approach would be that for each count that the defense can strike off as irrelevant or spurious, they would also get to strike off &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; other charge of their choosing. That alone would make prosecutors extremely wary of bringing up random charges in hopes of seeing which they can make stick. They would need to have solid evidence for each charge or risk having the most serious ones nullified.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, I&amp;#x27;m not naive enough. The cure could well be worse than the poison it was meant to address.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>CJefferson</author><text>So if we were (for example) sure a person had committed rape, and had good evidence they also committed murder, it is up to the prosecutor to decide if they should risk pursuing a murder charge, risking a person going free for a rape which they would certainly be convicted for?&lt;p&gt;Also, if you do murder someone, you may as all rape them too, as it can&amp;#x27;t lead to any more sentence?</text></comment>
<story><title>Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime</title><url>http://columbialawreview.org/ham-sandwich-nation_reynolds/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>gnoway</author><text>I was just thinking about this. Why do we allow multiple charges per trial?&lt;p&gt;What would happen if we only allowed one charge per trial, and it was a prosecutor&amp;#x27;s job to determine (along with existing duties) which one of the possible charges would be tried? Double jeopardy would be prevented by requiring submission to the court of all considered charges; attempting to bring a new charge for an already-adjudicated matter would be handled like a failure to disclose exculpatory evidence is today - the charge would be thrown out and the prosecutor would be reprimanded however that happens today.</text></item><item><author>lessnonymous</author><text>I&amp;#x27;d go further. The jury must convict on &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; presented charges or none. Throwing 900 charges at someone, as the article says, is a way to force a plea bargain from someone who may well be innocent. (And removing a charge after failing the plea bargain tactic, but before court can&amp;#x27;t be allowed either.)</text></item><item><author>bostik</author><text>In some of my not-entirely-sober states of mind I have sometimes thought of ways to eliminate prosecutorial overreach. (It&amp;#x27;s a problem outside US too.)&lt;p&gt;A very simple approach would be that for each count that the defense can strike off as irrelevant or spurious, they would also get to strike off &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; other charge of their choosing. That alone would make prosecutors extremely wary of bringing up random charges in hopes of seeing which they can make stick. They would need to have solid evidence for each charge or risk having the most serious ones nullified.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, I&amp;#x27;m not naive enough. The cure could well be worse than the poison it was meant to address.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>gamblor956</author><text>We allow multiple charges today because a person can be guilty of multiple different crimes for the same act.&lt;p&gt;Your suggestion makes no sense.  It would incentivize people to commit as many crimes simultaneously as possible, knowing that they could only ever be charged for one of them.</text></comment>