"Near the end, the case Beachum reviews regarding double jeopardy is People v. Bivens, 282 Cal. Rptr. 438, 231 Cal. App. 3d (Cal. Ct. App., 1991). Under Bivens, California can prosecute Crawford for murder, even though it arises out of the same transaction as a defendant's prior case. "
First, there are elements that have to be proven in attempted murder (specifically, you must prove that the person intended to kill the victim). A first degree murder case can be proven without proving intent. In California, you don't have to prove premeditated if you prove implied malice. Second, there are numerous cases when a person has died after a prolonged coma and the person has been charged again. This is not that unusual. For instance, the mayor of Chicago, Cermak was shot in the 1933. Assailant was convicted of attempted murder. Cermak died a month later, and the guy was re-tried for murder. Two different crimes arising from a single incident. The problem in this one is the estoppel element, which would prevent them from charging him if the elements are the same. But, I don't think they are.
Cal. law is the only law applicable and it is dipositive of the issue. If the legal question involves a unique set of facts then law from another jurisidiction (1 of the other 49 states or Federal case law) may be citied as persusaive (supporting one side's argument) but is NOT dispositive on the issue. European law would never be citied for any reason, other than England's Common law which could be argued was a source for US common law.
This is by no means a unique set of facts and occurs fairly routinely. Defendant attempts to murder (not accidentally) the victim. The victim is injured, but does not immediately die. Later as a direct result of the injuries inflicted by the defendant (as opposed to an intervening causation ie-negligence of a doctor, suicide, etc.) the victim dies. The defendant can now be tried for murder, unless he was found not guilty of attempted murder based on the same facts, absent the victim's death.
IMO, it would be malpractice per se if the Defendant's defense counsel, be it privately retained, court appointed, legal aid or public defender did not alert the defendant to this "exception" to the DJ rule. I assume the case citied in the triva section puts forth the specific compelling reasons that Cal. allows a defendant to potentialy be tried twice. Often times plea bargains are worked out with this in mind. Trial judges do their best, even if the attorney(s) do not, to prevent cases from returning to them on appeal. So the issue should be placed on the record at either the arraignment,pre-trial, plea/trial and/or sentencing by the presiding judge.