Posted on 07/06/2006 11:58:22 AM PDT by baal2006
"It is well established in this circuit that the death of a criminal defendant pending an appeal of his or her case abates, ab initio, the entire criminal proceeding." United States v. Asset, 990 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1993). In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2004), the court explained that "the appeal does not just disappear, and the case is not merely dismissed. Instead, everything associated with the case is extinguished, leaving the defendant as if he had never been indicted or convicted." In Parsons, the court vacated a forfeiture order, which means that the government's forfeiture claim against Lay for $43.5 million will be dismissed. The Fifth Circuit explained the rationale for the rule: "The finality principle reasons that the state should not label one as guilty until he has exhausted his opportunity to appeal. The punishment principle asserts that the state should not punish a dead person or his estate." An interesting question is whether one can still describe Lay as having been convicted of a crime, at least in a technical sense, because the law no longer recognizes there having been any criminal case initiated against him.
(Excerpt) Read more at stevemitton.com ...
Wait'll the libs find out his coffin costs $63,562,389.37
Does that reaoning apply for both natural causes and suicide?
I think it's a good law overall: it prevents the state from labeling a dead man a criminal so it can get its hands on his assets, which ought to belong to the beneficiaries of his will.
I suppose if you're dead, you're dead.
I don't think HOW you die makes a difference.
Not insignificant, if there were fines associated with the penalty.
Plus, any civil actions against the estate won't be a slam dunk.
"Plus, any civil actions against the estate won't be a slam dunk."
They'd have a hard time proving 'injury' if the courts recognize that a 'dead' person is considered never to have been a defendant to begin with.
You have to wonder if that sly Ken Lay knew the rule and took himself out just to screw the other side.
The Law is a ass...
I believe civil actions are distinct from criminal in that regard.
I was more talking about the ability to use a criminal verdict as conclusive evidence of fraud in a civil matter (collateral estoppel? judicial estoppel? --- not a lawyer, so I know not what the fancy word is).
Even tho civil actions are separate, they are generally based on the outcome of a criminal trial.
Once the government declares 'no harm no foul' in the case of a deceased person, then it would seem reasonable that the civil portion has no merit or evidence of injury.
'I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen one on TV'
I'm not an attorney either, but the usual standard though in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt" while the usual standard in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence." O.J. Simpson could be not guilty of murder yet be civilly liable for wrongful death.
True, but OJ is still alive.
If he had died before his trial had ended then no evidence would have been available because the government doesn't recognize dead men as criminals.
How do you sue a dead man?
You can't because, being dead, he no longer is responsible for his actions or executor of his estate.
Someone could commit suicide to prevent his estate from being seized so it could go to his heirs rather than fines and lawsuits.
"It is well established in this circuit that the death of a CRIMINAL defendant pending an appeal of his or her case abates, ab initio, the entire criminal proceeding."
Note to author: emphasis, mine.
Anyone who lost money in Enron stock can sue Ken Lay's estate. The only difference this makes (and it is a significant difference) is that the plaintiffs will have to prove in the civil case that Lay committed securities fraud; had his conviction not been vacated by his death, his guilt would have already been proven and would be treated as already established in the civil case.
There is some talk that the plaintiffs' lawyers may not pursue Lay's estate, but that has more to do with the perception that the estate may be insolvent than with a legal inability to pursue the case.
But wouldn't dismissal of the civil case be partly based on this?
"In Parsons, the court vacated a forfeiture order, which means that the government's forfeiture claim against Lay for $43.5 million will be dismissed."
If the government cannot persue it's claim then I don't see how a civil case would prevail or even be considered by the court.
You are right tho. You can sue anyone you want, but whether you are going to prevail is a whole different matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.