3 ms·

I think one of the key differences is that the argument here is that each falsification is separate from the other ones. Which differs from say the situation w

I think one of the key differences is that the argument here is that each falsification is separate from the other ones. Which differs from say the situation where somebody gets charged with Murder, Assault with a deadly weapon, Possession of a gravity knife, and Battery. That scenario it's really one act (killing somebody with a gravity knife) that becomes 4 counts. And it feels to me a bit like misjustice to charge somebody with 4 counts as opposed to the worst one. However, if you write 10 fake checks and cash them it seems to be perfectly reasonable to charge you with 10 counts of fake check writing.

jfengel 4y ago
The problem is double jeopardy. There are circumstances where you might not be guilty of the worst one, but could be guilty of the lesser charge. For example, you might not be guilty of the murder, but could be guilty of all of the other charges. If you're found not guilty, they can't re-try you on the other charges. So they charge all of the possible charges at once -- including charges that would be logically incompatible -- and let the jury decide which ones apply. The judge has some leeway in deciding whether your punishment should be four separate charges added up, or less than that, depending on state law. They can also have you serve you sentences "concurrently", which has a kind of elegance: if you're serving four sentences for the same action, you serve all four at once, which amounts to spending as much time in jail as the maximum.