Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 August 27

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 27

What happens with a criminal conviction when an appeal is taken but the defendant dies?

Let's say that a defendant is arrested and charged with a crime (let's just use murder as an example). If the defendant dies after he is arrested – but before any conviction – he cannot legally be considered a convicted murder. (Obviously.) If the defendant dies after a conviction, he can legally be considered a convicted murder. (Again, obviously.) What is his legal status if he dies after his conviction, but while an appeal is pending? Is he legally considered to be a convicted murderer? Or is he still presumed "not guilty", and, as such, he is not a convicted murderer? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A follow-up question will follow, after I ascertain the answer to my above question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oswald was never even put on trial, but conventionally he is referred to as the assassin of JFK, with no qualifications. Likewise with Booth, who was killed before he could be arrested for assassinating Lincoln, but he is always referred to as Lincoln's assassin. As to their legal status, "dead" pretty well covers it. But in terms of whether they're convicted or not, one of the main guys in the Enron case was convicted, but he died before the appeals process was done, so the conviction was "vacated". For all the good it did him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, Oswald and Booth can never get the legal status of "convicted murderer", obviously (despite public opinion and even despite 100% airtight evidence – if it existed – proving to a certainty that they committed the respective murders). Yes, I thought there was some notable case (you mentioned an Enron guy) that fell into the category that I was questioning. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Kenneth Lay is the Enron guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Yes, that's the one! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ISTR that there was a capital murder case in Texas where the defendant died before the trial finished, or maybe before it started; not quite sure. The prosecution went ahead with the case anyway (and tried to have him sentenced to death!) for some reason that I think had something to do with inheritance. I don't remember how far they got with it. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I can't imagine that a trial can be held when the defendant is not there (to defend himself). I can't see how that can be constitutional? I know that they have trials "in abstentia", but I believe that that can only occur when the defendant willfully and deliberately avoids the trial (e.g., fugitives from justice). A death, I presume, is involuntary (unless, of course, the defendant deliberately killed himself). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There are good reasons to have such a tiral, however. Inheritance is an important one. By law in I believe every US state, you cannot legally inherit money from someone you have murdered. So if you are suspected of murdering someone who left you money or other property, and then die yourself, the courts may need a decision on your guilt to know who gets that property. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's one example of such a case (although it hinges on life insurance rather than inheritance). Smurrayinchester 10:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That is an extremely interesting case. However, I believe that that case is referring to a civil trial (against his estate). I don't think there was a criminal trial referred to in that article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Putting a dead person on trial would be unconstitutional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that I have to agree. Putting a dead person on trial would be unconstitutional. Perhaps that is only for a criminal trial. I guess (?) it is possible to proceed with a civil trial against a dead person (i.e., his estate). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely possible. Nyttend (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Joseph mentions the essential difference: in the case of a dead suspect, a civil trial, not a criminal trial, will be held to determine the disposition of the estate. For example, if a suspected murderer dies, the victims relatives can still sue the estate for damages due to a wrongful death. Convictions can also be overturned or pardonned posthumously, the details will vary by jurisdiction. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Texas case was absolutely 100% definitely a criminal proceeding. Now, whether they got away with it or not, I either don't remember or never found out. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have searched high and low for the Texas criminal case. I was able to find nothing. Perhaps, "they" (the prosecutors) tried, but were unsuccessful. So, the case (and the story) went nowhere. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Putting a dead person on trial is simply useless, not unconstitutional. Because a dead person is not a person anymore. "They" are not American, they have no rights and duties, no money, no care at all for life, liberty or the pursuit of anything. If you prick them, they do not bleed. If you defame them, they do not mind. If you sentence them to death or one trillion years of probation, they simply do not recognize this court. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. So, back to my original question (in which I had indicated I wanted to follow up). Let's say that we have an appeal. The defendant dies before the appeal is decided. When the defendant dies, does the appellate court (or Supreme Court) just throw the case out? Or do they still proceed, as if the defendant were alive, in order to answer/resolve whatever the legitimate legal issues presented were? And, does it matter if it's civil or criminal? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Where? Surely it will differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The USA is where I was asking about. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Under the doctrine of abatement ab initio, the death of a criminal defendant in a proceeding in federal court in the United States pending direct review of a criminal conviction abates not only the appeal but also all proceedings had in the prosecution from its inception. If further proceedings are needed (e.g., to recover property stolen by the defendant), they must be in separate civil proceedings. There is a good discussion in United States v. Lay, which is the Kenneth Lay case. In a civil case seeking damages (as opposed to, say, injunctive relief against the defendant), the defendant's estate will be substituted for the deceased defendant. John M Baker (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe John M Baker is correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So, let's say that the case is before the U. S. Supreme Court. Now, for the most part, they have accepted the case because they think that it presents an important legal question that needs to be resolved at their level. So, the defendant dies. The U. S. Supreme Court will just throw out the case? Now, by that simple happenstance (the death of the defendant), the U. S. Supreme Court (and the parties, and the legal community at large) is no longer concerned with the important legal questions that need to be resolved at their level? The Supreme Court's reaction will essentially be: "Oh, well, I guess we will take up this important legal question next time around, when – and if – a new defendant comes along with the same legal issue to be resolved. Until that happens – if indeed it ever happens – we are happy to just keep the important legal issue unresolved for now." Is that the essence of what happens? Seems quite bizarre. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

See the Confrontation clause of the constitution. A dead defendant cannot cross-examine his accusers. According to this article, the Supreme Court has held the rule applies to state hearings as well. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a right of defendants. A dead defendant cannot defend itself in any manner, so it's not a defendant. That we routinely bury and burn the dead clearly shows they're exempt from rights. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, we need to take into account the difference between a criminal and a civil case. Both have "defendants". But the confrontation clause says: "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." I am quite aware that in the past and in local jurisdictions all sorts of things like animals and dead bodies have been put on trial. And courts have wide discretion in the US when the law does not limit their authority or jurisdiction. But this hypothetical case of the Supreme Court ruling on the criminal guilt of a dead man not convicted while he was alive is implausible in the extreme, if only for the fact that trial courts convict, not appellate courts. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: (μηδείς) - Which hypothetical U. S. Supreme Court case are you referring to? Your above posting has me totally confused. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"So, let's say that the case is before the U. S. Supreme Court." That's a hypothetical. μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: (μηδείς) - Thanks. Yes, I put forth a hypothetical. Maybe my hypothetical was not clear, which is why your reply confused me. So, let me clarify. In my hypothetical, I did not specify criminal or civil. (And I am not sure if the distinction really matters? Maybe yes, maybe no?) But, in my hypothetical, there is a live defendant. He "loses" the case (i.e., he is convicted criminally or found liable civilly). His case presents an important legal question that is as of yet unresolved. The U. S. Supreme Court finds the case "important enough" to accept, so that this important legal question can, finally, be resolved. After conviction or finding of civil liability – but before the U. S. Supreme Court decides the case – the defendant dies. Now, there is "no defendant" any more (due to his death). But there is still that lingering important legal issue, still unresolved, out there. That was the essence of my hypothetical. This is the statement of yours that has me confused: But this hypothetical case of the Supreme Court ruling on the criminal guilt of a dead man not convicted while he was alive is implausible in the extreme, if only for the fact that trial courts convict, not appellate courts. (As I said, maybe my hypothetical was unclear and not specific.) But, the confusing parts of your comment are as follows. (One) The defendant was convicted while alive; he died later; your comment states "dead man not convicted while he was alive". (Two) Who is saying that the appellate court would "convict" him? In my hypothetical, the appellate court (U. S. Supreme Court) is reviewing the appeal (i.e., reviewing the conviction); they are not convicting him outright (as that was done by the jury, already). Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You have to consider the difference between a trial court and an appeals court. I am not sure about treason, but no other crimes are first tried in the Supreme Court. Federal crimes will be tried in federal district court, as was the Boston Bomber case (U.S. v. Tsarnaev). If there was no criminal conviction in a lower court, there's nothing for the Supreme Court to try.

In criminal cases, the only thing they will hear will be appeals, which they can agree or decline to hear. But at this point the trial is a review of the lower court's actions, not a new criminal trial of the original defendant. The defendant's being alive at this point is not directly relevant to the court, because the prosecution is not allowed to put forth evidence that was not presented in the original trial court. Hence the defendant doesn't need to be given a chance to rebut any new evidence.

At this point, even if the defendant dies, the Supreme court could still decide on the appeal and uphold or overturn the prior ruling, or in effect vacate the ruling by sending it back to the lower court for retrial, which would be impossible. An example of the latter would be something like the Rod Blagojevich trial, where certain of his charges were vacated by an appeals court, and could have gone back for retrial. In his case the prosecutors have decided not to bother, but if they had, and Blagojevich had died, there would be no way to convict, so the charges would be dismissed.

So yes, the Supreme Court could refuse to hear an appeal; or could uphold, overturn, or vacate a conviction. (Normally a federal court will simply dismiss such cases as moot) But the latter would be a comment on the lower court's actions, not a new verdict in trial court. Please also keep in mind that I am not a lawyer or anywhere close to it, so at this point I'd prefer to withdraw from further comments. I think the sources I have given are clear enough to speak for themselves. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: (μηδείς) Thanks for the reply. But, no, this last reply of yours has me even more confused. I am quite aware of the difference between a trial court and an appellate court. But, I have no idea of how that distinction plays a role in my questions above. Or in this thread, at all, really. But, yes, let's both move on. Thanks for the input. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I should mention this quote from the mootness article: "The obvious fact of life is that most criminal convictions do in fact entail adverse collateral legal consequences. The mere possibility that this will be the case is enough to preserve a criminal case from ending ignominiously in the limbo of mootness." Sibron v. New York. In other words, an appeals court will still hear an appeal if the defendant is dead if the case involves some sort of consequences like forfeiture of property or a criminal fine that effects the victims or the heirs of the deceased accused. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You might also want to look at inquest and the Warren Commission where responsibility for a murder was determined without a criminal trial of a living defendant. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but ... they (the Warren Commission) did not assign any legal responsibility for the murder. Just investigatory. (And a dog-and-pony show, at that!) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How have animals and dead bodies been put on trial? Do they bring the corpse into the courtroom and empanel a jury?

In this country there is a legal maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona which means that a person's legal rights are extinguished when he dies and cannot be enforced by his estate. Sometimes people who have been criminally convicted are given a posthumous pardon - Alan Turing is a good example. Many people who commit crimes commit suicide shortly afterwards. I've never known the police to instruct the Crown Prosecution Service in those circumstances to secure a conviction. 80.43.176.34 (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In which country? My question above is about the USA. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned animals being put on trial as a matter of context. See google, although some of the hits are about medical trials on animal subjects. μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We also have an article on animal trials. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Medeis says

At this point, even if the defendant dies, the Supreme court could still decide on the appeal and uphold or overturn the prior ruling.

She cites Sibron v. New York as authority for this but that case had nothing to do with an appellant who had died. 89.240.30.79 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow what you are saying. Yes, Medeis did indeed say: "At this point, even if the defendant dies, the Supreme court could still decide on the appeal and uphold or overturn the prior ruling." And, yes, Medeis did indeed cite Sibron v. New York. But, these comments were made in two completely different paragraphs, in two completely different posts. So, I do not believe that Medeis was using the Sibron case to support the proposition quoted (about "even if the defendant dies"). Medeis cited the Sibron case as it relates to mootness. Mootness may, or may not, involve a party's death. That was my understanding of Medeis's comments. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Re - reading the thread, I note that Medeis is citing the Rod Blagojevich trial. But she points out that if Blagojevich had died the case would have come to an end. So I'm finding it difficult to see where she gets support for her proposition. 89.240.30.79 (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What I said is that certain of the rulings against Blagojevich were vacated (the charges were not dismissed with prejudice), and that they could even now be retried, but not if he were to die during the retrial--they would remain vacated. A rational discussion requires that you pay attention to the full context, and neither pick nits with one sentence in a vacuum, nor misquote someone by omitting the material between two widely separated comments. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well,you're saying that if the defendant dies the case will stop, which is pretty much what I was saying. 86.150.228.240 (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)