General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor you lawyers here: can POtuS be charged with gross criminal negligence re: Covid-19?
Okay, this isn't about whether a sitting president (so to speak) can be indicted, or government immunity, or whether it could happen now, or any of that stuff. That's all a separate conversation. We don't need to go there.
My question is, can a person who has acted in the manner POtuS did, and given what we're finding out he knew ahead of time, be charged with gross criminal negligence?
According to a brief piece in Wikipedia, "Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life."
So what do you lawyers here think? Does gross criminal negligence apply here?
safeinOhio
(32,676 posts)I think
bluestarone
(16,940 posts)Not with BARR in charge.
gibraltar72
(7,504 posts)Great vids on You tube.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)which is used for what amounts to intentional "accidental" manslaughter in many states against not just Trump but McConnell, Richard Burr and other Republican senators and state officials?
Lock him up.
(6,928 posts)And barr.
MousePlayingDaffodil
(748 posts)Your specific question -- can Trump be charged with "criminal negligence -- is a bit of a non sequitur. Criminal negligence is not itself a crime, but rather, functions as a surrogate, as it were, for the mens rea that needs to be shown in order to convict someone of a specified crime. So what crime do you propose POTUS be charged with?
Here's a link to the list of federal crimes. Maybe one of them applies (albeit, questions of "immunity" and constitutional bar aside).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I
Blecht
(3,803 posts)Couldn't a state charge him with criminally negligent homicide?
Voltaire2
(13,033 posts)Azathoth
(4,608 posts)For instance, if it can be proved that he used the federal ventilator stockpile to reward allies and punish enemies, there might be some kind of criminal case there.
onenote
(42,702 posts)Response to grumpyduck (Original post)
elocs This message was self-deleted by its author.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,692 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 12, 2020, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)
Don't rely on Wikipedia for legal definitions; they vary state to state depending on statutes and court decisions. In any event, it's not clear that His Lardship could be charged with a crime arising from his handling (or non-handling) of the COVID-19 outbreak. For one thing, the risk of death or injury is to unknown, unspecified and unidentified persons. Can you be charged with manslaughter (that's what criminal negligence is) if the victims were unknown and unspecified members of the general public? Possibly yes, since if you shoot a gun in the dark without knowing if people are around and you kill someone even without intending to do so, you could be charged. The more important question is whether an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize the conduct as involving a strong probability of injury to others.
In my state, the statute defining manslaughter in the second degree says:
"A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both: (1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another..." A case interpreting the statute also said: "It is more than ordinary negligence. It is more than gross negligence. It is gross negligence coupled with the element of recklessness. It is intentional conduct which the actor may not intend to be harmful but which an ordinary and reasonably prudent man would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others."
The jury instructions in a second-degree manslaughter case require the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:
The defendant caused the death of the victim, by culpable negligence, whereby the defendant created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm.
To cause means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. The defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes, if such intervening causes were the natural result of the defendant's acts. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability.
Culpable negligence is intentional conduct that the defendant may not have intended t0 be harmful, but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving strong probability of injury to others. Culpable negligence is more than ordinary negligence. It is more than gross negligence. It is gross negligence coupled with an element of recklessness.
Recklessness is conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of
death or great bodily harm to others. This means the defendant consciously committed an act: 1) that created risk; 2) the risk was substantial; 3) there was no adequate reason for taking the risk; 4) the defendant was aware of the risk; and 5) the defendant disregarded it. The defendant need not have intended, however, to cause harm.
So what would a jury do? And would the defense that he acted reasonably because he was following the advice of "experts" (for example, those who promote herd immunity as the solution, like Anders Tegnell of Sweden) be effective if other experts have warned otherwise?
As to civil liability for negligence, there is a doctrine of qualified immunity that would probably get him off the hook. This protects government officials against civil lawsuits based on discretionary actions performed in their official capacity, unless their actions violated clearly established federal law or constitutional rights.
grumpyduck
(6,235 posts)in a clear and concise manner.
From what you're saying, it appears to me that a criminal case could be built here, and, given what the New York Times has dug up (and assuming it's correct and verifiable), that the defense would have a hard time "proving" that he was following the advice of credible experts. But then again I'm not a lawyer. So whaddaIknow?
It just seems to me that if anyone else did something like this, his or her ass would be hauled to court pretty quickly.
Thanks again.