If you lost your memory much like in unknown white male is it possible to be legally exempt from past crimes?

Question

As an example. Because aside from the skills and general knowledge you have aquired you are effectly a completley new individual. In the example of unknown white male if he had killed someone years ago, perhaps even commited manslaughter and didn't know it but only recently had forensics been able to prove that he was responsible then why would he have to stand trial? Could he claim a new birth certificate? Or perhaps a death certificate leaving himself as the beneficiary to his own stuff should such an event occur? To ad he was able to prove he wasn't faking as medical evidence showed something up on a cat scan.

Answer 1

His only defense is wither or not he was sane enough to understand his actions at the time of the murder, not at the time he was caught. That dang thing of having no statute of limitations on murder. You could argue that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial, but that is a roll of the dice. Either he is a permanent ward of the state in a mental hospital, or the prison.

Answer 2

even though this isn't really useful i think i saw this on a soap opera once, but i never really followed the plot through so i don't know what kind of regard soap-writers have for the statute of limitations.

it's an interesting question though, because it would be incredibly frustrating being punished for a crime you don't remember commiting & actually defeats the purpose of being punished in the first place. you can't really be reformed if you can't connect the incidence to the consequence. so that point might be grounds for some kind of appeal to a sentence, rather than an exemption. but everything i 'know' about the law comes from watching 'law & order' so stick with the guy above me.

(i left you a reply in the comments section of the ego question but it just occurred to me you might not see it. someone else has left a baffling comment though, i have no idea what to make of it.)

Answer 3

If a defendant was charge with a "specific intent" crime, where the prosecution must prove he or she specifically intended to commit that crime, a loss of memory could prevent the prosecution of from proving intent IF THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO PROVE HE INTENTIONALLY COMMITTED THE KILLING. For example, if someone is charged with first dgree murder, and he has no memory of the incident, the prosecution will have trouble proving that he went through the steps of planning the murder without other evidence.

There was a California case in which Huey Newton was accused of shooting a police officer. An officer died; Newton was shot and he blacked out due to loss of blood. The prosecution charged him with murder. He was convicted but acquitted on appeal because there was no other evidence that he purposely shot anyone. In that case, unconsciousness can be a defense to murder.