Medical examiner rules James Brady's death a homicide

There was in our area a combat wounded veteran that survived the initial injuries, but lost 3 limbs.  He recently died (10 years after being wounded) as a direct result of the injuries sustained.  The M.E. did the investigation to determine if it was "natural aging process" or directly attributed to the gunshot injuries.

It happens often for wounded or disabled veterans, and for those that have been shot with a firearm and die years (decades sometimes) later.This determination is not that uncommon.


Forensic Pathology, Second Edition

"Officials at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, where Hinckley is a patient, have said that the mental illness that led him to shoot Reagan in an effort to impress actress Jodie Foster has been in remission for decades. Hinckley has been allowed to leave the hospital to visit his mother's home in Williamsburg, Virginia, and can now spend more than half of his time outside the hospital on such visits."

www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/james_bradys_autopsy_showed_de_1.html


Good. Since Hinckley now spends more than 1/2 his time out of the hospital, how soon will it be before he's out completely.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant, though granted probably didn't explain myself very well lol!  What I probably should have said was that due to the fact that he is still 'committed' albeit with home visits to his parents, he would still have to be found competent to stand trial for the current charge. correct? 

Thanks also for the info about the statue of limitations.  I was 99.9% sure there wasn't, but looked it up after I posted anyway and found 'no statue on murder' to be correct.

I wonder if the ruling will allow for an insurance benefit to the surviving spouse? If he died of natural causes he may not be eligible for a benefit that would occur if he were murdered while on the job? I agree that if he died as a result of injuries sustained from being shot, even 30 years later, that there is no other option than to rule it as a result of murder.

Why not? There are people who have died in the past couple of years whose deaths were ruled to be a direct result of injuries sustained during the Vietnam war, and their names have been added to the Memorial Wall as war casualties. So why would Mr. Brady's injuries that resulted in death, albeit many years later, be any different?

I watch Dr G: Medical Examiner and she had a case where a guy was beaten severely but survived. When he died 10 years later, she explained that the manner of his death was directly related to the beating that he had received. The perp who was already in jail for the assault was charged with the man's death. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

Mr. Brady courageously went on with his life although he must have suffered horribly not only physically but mentally from having so many limitations from brain damage, immobility, and years of medications and surgeries. I respect him for not just saying die, but for using his experiences to make a difference in support of better gun control laws. I know if he were my father, I'd want Hinkley to stay locked up forever.

I don't really understand how they even decided that Hinkley was insane. He was sane enough to write well constructed prose and follow Jodie Foster around. I guess maybe the decision that he was insane was reached because a sane person wouldn't have decided that assassinating the president was a way to obtain a person's romantic interest. I hope there was more than that because lots of people do things for love that others would judge insane.

I do wish Mr. Brady's family and Mr. Hinkley's family find peace. I also hope that Mr. Hinkley has gotten the treatment he needs, but he should still have a serious punishment not only for the ultimate murder of James Brady, but also for the act of treason of attempting to kill an American president.

Also, in my own opinion and life experience, reaching the conclusion that any human that committed murder would have to have been insane at the time of the murder is a bitch slap in the face to any victim of violent crime or murder. Using mental illness as an excuse for doing a horribly evil act means the perpetrator isn't really responsible and therefore doesn't have to admit to a horrible act and take responsibility and any consequences for that act. Do you really want to say that Hitler, Dr. Mengele, Leaders of the SS, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Al-Quaida, ISIS and countless other evil people are *really* not responsible for their acts because they were *sick*?

I do agree that some people have such a profound mental illness that they did not know what they were doing. As a person that has dealt with mental illness--low serotonin levels that leave me unable to sleep, regulate my heart rate, and at a greater risk of depression, I am still sane. I am aware of the acts I do or don't do. I would not expect someone to argue that I didn't know what I was doing if I cut off the penis of the doctor that raped me when I was 4 years and fed it to him, and that I was insane. The series of evil choices that man made that resulted in my rape were not the acts of a sick man that had no idea what he was doing. (he was practicing medicine!) I would also say that if I decided to go all vigilante on him, that my act would be evil as well.

This article does an excellent job of breaking down the reasons why Hinckley probably can't be tried a second time:Washington Post. The author of that article is not an attorney, but a UCLA law professor gave the same analysis in this article.

1. When Brady was shot, DC and the Federal Government followed the "year and a day" rule established under common law that required a death to occur within one year and one day of the act that caused the death in order to charge the defendant with murder. In 1987, the Supreme Court expressly stated that the year and a day rule was still the law in DC.

2. Collateral estoppel against the government could also apply. Collateral estoppel says that when two parties litigate an issue and a ruling is made, that ruling is binding in any subsequent litigation between the same two parties (unless, of course, the original ruling is appealed and overturned). It applies to both civil and criminal litigation. The federal government tried Hinckley in for attempted murder in 1981 (or 1982--not sure how long it took to get to trial?) and lost. As part of its case against him, it tried to prove that he had intended to kill the men he shot. It lost on that count when the jury ruled that Hinckley did not have the mental capacity to intend to kill them. The federal government lost on the question of intent, a required element of the charge, and it doesn't get a second chance to prove it just because Brady died over 30 years later. The application of the insanity ruling is exactly the same for both the attempted murder charge and the murder charge, so the government doesn't get a second chance to prove he was not insane. It is bound by the original finding of insanity.

I know there are many who are focusing on double jeopardy and the fact that it does not generally prohibit re-charging the defendant if the victim subsequently dies. However, I think this is a special case because of the insanity plea and finding in the original trial. In this case, you can't even go to a state court to retry him because the applicable jurisdiction would be DC, and DC and the federal government are considered the same sovereign.

I saw it on the news, Good Morning America I think that made it sound that he was still being followed.

I just came back to say I discussed this today with my sister who's a deputy DA and she thinks it's ridiculous that they're calling it homicide. Of course, she thinks she knows more than I do just because she has a law degree. hmmph 

I think those in the Brady inner circle have had this planned for a very long time. It may just be an insurance policy in case Hinkley is ever released from the mental institution, or to have his current 'leave' from the place curtailed.

My father died 20+ years after being injured in the war, but his death was listed as a direct result of those war injuries, so I'm not sure why Brady's death can't be directly linked to the bullet fired by Hinkley, and there's no statute of limitation on murder....but I do need to go read the piece Twinsmom is talking about....

I think it's perfectly fine for Hinkley to spend his life with the potential of being charged with a homicide hanging over his head, even if they never do formally charge him.