I think you will find that Harry was not part of a common purpose with regard to Harvey, indeed he was going all out to save him.
In 1973, the Illinois Supreme Court went with the proximate cause theory of liability for felony murder. Trying to stop the crime, one cop shot another in the back. The defendant was found guilty.
The bank job was the cause in fact for Harvey's death. Proximate cause is arguable. Therefore Harry's guilt under a felony murder theory of liability is arguable in that case. If I was trying to prosecute Harry, I'd argue the precedent is applicable because Tessa killed Harvey trying to stop the crime. If I was defending Harry, I'd try to distinguish the case because Tessa intended for Harvey to die whereas the cop accidentally killed the other cop.
That's all assuming the 1973 case is good law. I'm not going to shepardize it. I don't have a LexisNexis subscription.
Based on the facts, it's arguable whether Harry is criminally liable for the death of Harvey. I think the answer is probably yes.
The bank guard is a different story. Harry's guilty.
As regards the bank robbery, there was no intention to steal anything from within the Bank.
I cut the quote there because I don't see how any of that is legally relevant. (I also don't think that Marcone hired Rudolph, so I'm not arguing with you there).
A death resulting from a act while "he or she is attempting or committing a forcible felony" is guilty of murder.
"Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Emphasis added.
Burglary.
(a) A person commits burglary when without authority he or she knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car, or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft.
Emphasis added.
Harry burgled the bank. He intended to kidnap the guards, maybe it was an aggravated kidnapping, therein. He intended to burgle Hades vault from the vault (good luck arguing that one to a jury).
Harry kidnapped guards.
Harry assaulted the guards with fireworks. Almost certainly assault with a deadly weapon.
His fireworks use could have been considered arson.
They took the guards handcuffs. That's robbery.
There are plenty of forcible felonies for prosecutors to hang their hats on.
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that if it is "contemplated that violence might be necessary to enable the conspirators to carry out their common purpose" then it's felony murder. Harry loaded the magazines. Harry knew he was working with sociopathic murderers. Harry knew how Marcone would respond based on what Justine observed in
Even Hand. Harry knew he was going to use violence. Use of violence was more than complicated. Harry meets this requirement.
I have no question that Harry is guilty of felony murder in regards to the bank guard.
Harry didn't murder Harvey, or the security guard, but he was on scene. "Probably" isn't proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
So you are unfamiliar with felony murder.
I said probably because I hadn't looked up the burglary statute. I was fairly certain Harry had committed burglary without having looked it up. Turns out I was right. It's not a question of fact. It's a question of law.