Read 'Trial by Jury' by Lysander Spooner. The immoral rules of trail invented by this democratic communist country would not apply in a fair trial. The jury decides what is admissible and what isn't, what is evidence and what isn't and whether or not the law is allowable to discern what is just. This prevents the government from passing laws that are corrupt and then employing their use to take away the rights of people. The ultimate supreme court was the trial by jury. The fact that there are no heirs does not excuse Person B or A. They are both criminals and need to be closely observed.

I disagree about the car's really belonging to Person
B. If you steal my money, you are not entitled to
anything you buy with it.

Great point, which I should not have missed pre-
viously--someone other that Person A being owner
of the car!

Person A is guilty of taking the law into his own
hands, which would be a separate charge. (See
Ayn Rand's "The Nature of Government" in The
Virtue of Selfishness.)

The state where it occurred is the recipient.

I hope he goes poking around and gets painted with the brush he deserves.

I didn't think about "inadmissible". You are probably right about that.

This is a "two wrongs make a right" moral puzzle. The legal part is clear, and the moral part isn't that troubling either.

Should be separate crime, irrelevant, unless that guy Holder is the judge, he would let person A off and put person B in prison, of course depending on their political affiliations.

thoritsu is correct and the other evidence would be deemed inadmissible. my thinking anyway

as i understand the scenario, person a took the car without the intent to pay for it...theft...

Intent is the key here. Intent must be proven to have a crime. Here A voluntarily chose to do something he knew was wrong.

destroy the car

Soldiers fight for their government, not their countries. Courts at this point are owned by the lawyers, with only lip service to the rights of citizens.

I think you have that off. Judges decide what gets introduced as evidence. Juries evaluate evidence and pronounce sentence.

Separate crime. Irrelevant to this one.

Actually a quite simple question.

Yes......ownership of the car was not Person A. He was not specifically stealing from B, so B's ownership has no bearing on the criminality of the act. The car belongs to someone.....just not Mr. A!

Now, if this was a civil suit everything would be diffrent....Mr. B could not allege that he was damaged by the theft so therefore A would be found to be innocent in a civil case because B did not own the car.

"If instead of a car, someone else had made off with the actual money that he had stolen earlier, would that change the moral equation?"
I think it's still the same type of theft, but that may be because I see money as fungible. What if we change it to be one-of-a-kind heirloom? For some reason that makes Person B seem less like a "victim" of Person A and more like just another criminal.

All true, and in the real world it probably wouldn't be an issue. As a though experiment, however, it brings up some questions whose answers may not be readily obvious. Questions such as: Crimes require victims. Is Person B a victim of a crime? Did the car become his morally rightful property when he purchased it with stolen money? If instead of a car, someone else had made off with the actual money that he had stolen earlier, would that change the moral equation?

I don't think the distinction is that clear cut. The jury can (or at least should be able to) decide whether a person's actions constitute a crime. And the whole concept of jury nullification depends upon a jury being able to have a say in questions of law.

One nit in this scenario. The judge is supposed to decide on questions of law, like whether it matters that the stolen car had been purchased with stolen money. The jury is supposed to decide questions of fact, like there really evidence to prove Person A stole and wasn't somehow framed.

I like this question. I wrote out this summary of the scenario to think it through:
-Person C earned money in an honest transaction.
-Person B steals Person C's money.
-Person C dies and leave no heirs.
-Person B trades the stolen money with Person D to get a car in a transaction that's honest except Person B isn't the rightful owner of the money.
-Person A steals the car from Person B.

I think morally we have to look at each theft individually. Person D shouldn't have to verify the origin of the money to sell her car. Person B's stealing money doesn't make it open-season for anyone who wants to steal things he bought with the money.

The scenario is complicated enough that it almost begs for a complicating circumstance like an insurance company lawsuit, or the government wanting to claim the stolen car from Person C for lack of ability to pay the estate tax, or some evidence of Person A's theft being inadmissible. Of course, thief A is guilty, but is he/she guilty in a court of lawyers (I refuse to call them courts of law.)?

I sat for two juries in the last 10 years, and because I actually could read biomedical images (and therefore could be an independent thinking juror), I was (of course) not selected when the juries were winnowed from 14 to 6. Those unfortunate doctors could not get a jury of their peers (including other doctors).

"legally or morally?"
I'll have to think about it. I think of stolen property as going back to the original owner, even if it's sold. That makes me think of the money that now in the hands of Person D who sold Person B the car having no idea the money she was receiving was stolen. My first thought is money is fungible, and how do you know Person D received those exact same dollars belonging to Person C. I have to think about further.

Person A is guilty of theft. There was presumably no coercion involved with Person B's purchase of the car. So, although "B" committed a crime previously, he was still the legal owner of the car. In fact, it doesn't even matter who owned the car previous to "A" stealing it. The answer to the question is found in your 1st sentence, CBJ: "Person A steals (a) car ..." Whoever was the rightful owner is irrelevant (thereby making the issue of "the legitimate owner" a moot issue). The ONLY relevant issue is the fact the Person A did NOT own it.

By "belonged" do you mean legally or morally? In this case there might be a difference.