You died in jail? I'mma sentence you anyway!

[dendawg]

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci...es-after-death

After being convicted of raping and kidnapping a waitress, this guy commits suicide in jail while waiting to be sentenced. The judge wants to go ahead with the sentencing phase regardless. WTF??

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah, that title doesn't really relate to the story.

The issue is that the case is stuck between the conviction and sentencing portions and there is no legal procedure for how to handle it when a criminal takes his own life during that time.

So, rather than just dismiss the case, which he may not have the authority to do, the judge has postponed it to allow the attorneys to research in the hopes of finding the appropriate solution.

Also, when many cases of sentencing include things such as fines, sentencing needs to be concluded, even in the case of death, so that the estate can be billed for whatever that happens to be.

[Ginger Tea]

it might be a case of covering your arse, if they decided to abandon it it could be challenged as an acquittal or any other legal term for being found innocent, then the family could sue citing his wrongful arrest caused him to take his own life.

Even though he was found guilty before hand, it might be a general practice, although TV always has it the foreman says guilty and within minutes a sentence is handed down.

edi:
just read the link, there is a blatt mentioned a tonne of times, but not once did it say who s/he was, I am guessing lawyer for the deceased, but the article just introduces them via a quote and that is all.
if blatt is a lawyer, then perhaps there are bit's in the legal system relating to this that might be found if a lawyer actually looked into instead of saying "this will be a charade."

[s_stabeler]

um, it IS the sentancing phase, ergo, the actual criminal is actaully unnessecary at this point. (the reason you can't convict somebody in absentia si to allow for the accused to present a defense; a defense is unnessecary now) obviously the guy can't be imprisoned, but finesd and such can still be levied.

[Panacea]

Also, when many cases of sentencing include things such as fines, sentencing needs to be concluded, even in the case of death, so that the estate can be billed for whatever that happens to be.

Bingo. If the defendant had any assets, they could be seized to pay restitution to the victim. He may have some; retirement accounts or bank accounts that are not protected, cars, a house, etc.

Plus, the victim needs closure as well. Knowing what the sentence may have been may bring some peace of mind to her.

[s_stabeler]

Panacea, I'm 99% sure that assets being protected becomes irrelevent after the owner of said assets dies. Debts of an estate must be paid off out of the estate- if the debts exceed the total of teh estate, nothing is inherited.

[Panacea]

And if he's married, and assets are in two names? Then it gets really murky. A court might be able to force a fire sale, but the living owner would fight it.

[wolfie]

And if he's married, and assets are in two names? Then it gets really murky. A court might be able to force a fire sale, but the living owner would fight it.

It all depends on how the assets in both names were held. One form of joint holding, when one person dies, the entire asset becomes property of the other automatically at the time of death, so it's not part of the estate (and the court would have no claim on it, since at the time of sentencing it's entirely the property of someone other than the offender). This is most often done for real estate purposes.

In the other form, each party owns half of the asset, so the court would only have a claim on half the value. If they were to force a fire sale, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot - since the owner of the other half could "buy out" the dead person's share at the fire sale price, and the court would get peanuts. Also, who would buy (for example) a half-share in a car?

If the hypothetical couple had planned properly, the court would have no claim on any life insurance, since each would have bought a policy on the other instead of on themselves - so the owner of the policy on the dead offender (and hence the recipient of the payout) would be the spouse, rather than the estate.