First, let me state that I'm not a lawyer, so if I sound like a goober, I apologize. There's a very interesting legal situation going on where I live. Apperently, it was thought that someone killed a kid 10 years ago. A young man was passed out at a party, and another kid slit his throat, wrists, etc. while it was believed he was passed out. It turns out that now that the kid who was believed to have been killed may have actually already been dead due to a drug overdose. The murderer is being retried in the face of this new evidence. Even though the victim may have been dead prior to being "murdered," should the "murderer" be retried on different counts? From a philosophical standpoint, I don't think he should, since his intention was to kill. I remember a comedian (I believe it was Bill Mahar) once made a joke that he didn't see what the difference was between a count of murder and a count of attempted murder because the later just meant that someone was a bad shot. Even though it was a joke, a have to agree with this. I believe that if your attempt is to kill someone, you should be tried for murder. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so that's only my layman's opinion. What do you think?