If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TwinCities.com)   Minnesota Supreme Court decides that if a defendant dies, he should be tossed out of court. His case also   (twincities.com) divider line 22
    More: Obvious, Minnesota Supreme Court, Minnesota, Federal Circuit, Appeals Court, strict scrutiny, convictions  
•       •       •

940 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Oct 2013 at 7:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-03 07:09:32 AM  
"You die a hero.  Or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
 
2013-10-03 07:14:25 AM  
"the rights of society and of victims"

Also known as "revenge". It's a part of the justice system that I wish didn't exist.

OTOH, if the defendant would be found liable for damages, dropping the charges against him because he died does a disservice to those he would otherwise have been forced to recompense.
 
2013-10-03 07:17:17 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: "the rights of society and of victims"

Also known as "revenge". It's a part of the justice system that I wish didn't exist.

OTOH, if the defendant would be found liable for damages, dropping the charges against him because he died does a disservice to those he would otherwise have been forced to recompense.


This is the more practical issue.

If you are found guilty, that conviction can be used as a matter of fact in a civil suit, where as if the conviction is overturned you have to prove the facts of the conviction in the civil trial. By overturning the conviction you are making any related civil suits more cumbersome
 
2013-10-03 07:18:43 AM  

Loki009: AverageAmericanGuy: "the rights of society and of victims"

Also known as "revenge". It's a part of the justice system that I wish didn't exist.

OTOH, if the defendant would be found liable for damages, dropping the charges against him because he died does a disservice to those he would otherwise have been forced to recompense.

This is the more practical issue.

If you are found guilty, that conviction can be used as a matter of fact in a civil suit, where as if the conviction is overturned you have to prove the facts of the conviction in the civil trial. By overturning the conviction you are making any related civil suits more cumbersome


3 to 1, the Minnesota Supreme Court justices disagree with us.
 
2013-10-03 07:24:45 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Loki009: AverageAmericanGuy: "the rights of society and of victims"

Also known as "revenge". It's a part of the justice system that I wish didn't exist.

OTOH, if the defendant would be found liable for damages, dropping the charges against him because he died does a disservice to those he would otherwise have been forced to recompense.

This is the more practical issue.

If you are found guilty, that conviction can be used as a matter of fact in a civil suit, where as if the conviction is overturned you have to prove the facts of the conviction in the civil trial. By overturning the conviction you are making any related civil suits more cumbersome

3 to 1, the Minnesota Supreme Court justices disagree with us.


No they aren't. If you are convicted, don't appeal and then die before the civil suit there is nothing here that prevents that conviction from being used against your estate.

This just says that under the state law / constitution the conviction isnt fully in effect till the appeals are settled and they dont believe it is in the states interest to continue the appeal as the matter is moot.

Since the appeal is no longer considered they have decided that the state has no interest in continuing charges either and for the deceased individual it is his rights to have the charges dismissed since the state has no interest in the prosecution.
 
2013-10-03 07:28:14 AM  

Loki009: AverageAmericanGuy: Loki009: AverageAmericanGuy: "the rights of society and of victims"

Also known as "revenge". It's a part of the justice system that I wish didn't exist.

OTOH, if the defendant would be found liable for damages, dropping the charges against him because he died does a disservice to those he would otherwise have been forced to recompense.

This is the more practical issue.

If you are found guilty, that conviction can be used as a matter of fact in a civil suit, where as if the conviction is overturned you have to prove the facts of the conviction in the civil trial. By overturning the conviction you are making any related civil suits more cumbersome

3 to 1, the Minnesota Supreme Court justices disagree with us.

No they aren't. If you are convicted, don't appeal and then die before the civil suit there is nothing here that prevents that conviction from being used against your estate.

This just says that under the state law / constitution the conviction isnt fully in effect till the appeals are settled and they dont believe it is in the states interest to continue the appeal as the matter is moot.

Since the appeal is no longer considered they have decided that the state has no interest in continuing charges either and for the deceased individual it is his rights to have the charges dismissed since the state has no interest in the prosecution.


Does this mean that appealing and dying is an automatic dropping of the initial charges and the conviction can't be used in a civil case?
 
2013-10-03 07:28:58 AM  
That reminds me... Since Walter White died before he could be convicted, wouldn't all the assets seized revert since at the Federal level the case would be dismissed. It's something I picked up when that Enron CEO popped off between his conviction and sentencing.

Also, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea is sooo Minnesota.
 
2013-10-03 07:47:34 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Loki009: AverageAmericanGuy: Loki009: AverageAmericanGuy: "the rights of society and of victims"

Also known as "revenge". It's a part of the justice system that I wish didn't exist.

OTOH, if the defendant would be found liable for damages, dropping the charges against him because he died does a disservice to those he would otherwise have been forced to recompense.

This is the more practical issue.

If you are found guilty, that conviction can be used as a matter of fact in a civil suit, where as if the conviction is overturned you have to prove the facts of the conviction in the civil trial. By overturning the conviction you are making any related civil suits more cumbersome

3 to 1, the Minnesota Supreme Court justices disagree with us.

No they aren't. If you are convicted, don't appeal and then die before the civil suit there is nothing here that prevents that conviction from being used against your estate.

This just says that under the state law / constitution the conviction isnt fully in effect till the appeals are settled and they dont believe it is in the states interest to continue the appeal as the matter is moot.

Since the appeal is no longer considered they have decided that the state has no interest in continuing charges either and for the deceased individual it is his rights to have the charges dismissed since the state has no interest in the prosecution.

Does this mean that appealing and dying is an automatic dropping of the initial charges and the conviction can't be used in a civil case?


It means you were never convicted to begin with because the 'trial' never concluded with a final verdict..  It's functionally no different from having died right after the lawyers made opening statements.

The guy in question was never legally found guilty - or not guilty.  The oucome of his trial would have no bearing on a separate civil matter because the was no outcome.
 
2013-10-03 07:47:52 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Loki009: AverageAmericanGuy: Loki009: AverageAmericanGuy: "the rights of society and of victims"

Also known as "revenge". It's a part of the justice system that I wish didn't exist.

OTOH, if the defendant would be found liable for damages, dropping the charges against him because he died does a disservice to those he would otherwise have been forced to recompense.

This is the more practical issue.

If you are found guilty, that conviction can be used as a matter of fact in a civil suit, where as if the conviction is overturned you have to prove the facts of the conviction in the civil trial. By overturning the conviction you are making any related civil suits more cumbersome

3 to 1, the Minnesota Supreme Court justices disagree with us.

No they aren't. If you are convicted, don't appeal and then die before the civil suit there is nothing here that prevents that conviction from being used against your estate.

This just says that under the state law / constitution the conviction isnt fully in effect till the appeals are settled and they dont believe it is in the states interest to continue the appeal as the matter is moot.

Since the appeal is no longer considered they have decided that the state has no interest in continuing charges either and for the deceased individual it is his rights to have the charges dismissed since the state has no interest in the prosecution.

Does this mean that appealing and dying is an automatic dropping of the initial charges and the conviction can't be used in a civil case?


I will add here that I am not a lawyer.

But yes, that is exactly the reason that this ruling has significant relevance. It adds an additional hurdle to suing the estate.

Same thing happened with the Enron CEO when he died post conviction but before his appeal was heard.
 
2013-10-03 07:48:54 AM  

wildcardjack: That reminds me... Since Walter White died before he could be convicted, wouldn't all the assets seized revert since at the Federal level the case would be dismissed. It's something I picked up when that Enron CEO popped off between his conviction and sentencing.

Also, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea is sooo Minnesota.


Except in her politics - she's a little more reliably "conservative" than your average Minnesotan.
 
2013-10-03 07:49:08 AM  
dedradbaker.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-03 07:53:25 AM  
A dead man cannot speak in his own defense, nor can he question his accusers. Trying a dead man is the same as trying him in absentia.
 
2013-10-03 07:53:45 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Does this mean that appealing and dying is an automatic dropping of the initial charges and the conviction can't be used in a civil case?


TFA : In Wednesday's ruling, the majority said its decision applies in cases where there is no restitution ordered to victims. The justices did not consider how a case involving restitution should be resolved.
 
2013-10-03 07:57:50 AM  

wildcardjack: That reminds me... Since Walter White died before he could be convicted, wouldn't all the assets seized revert since at the Federal level the case would be dismissed. It's something I picked up when that Enron CEO popped off between his conviction and sentencing.

Also, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea is sooo Minnesota.


I believe the federal government would file civil asset forfeiture proceedings against his assets and his estate. You don't need to be alive for that.
 
2013-10-03 07:59:19 AM  

Misch: AverageAmericanGuy: Does this mean that appealing and dying is an automatic dropping of the initial charges and the conviction can't be used in a civil case?

TFA : In Wednesday's ruling, the majority said its decision applies in cases where there is no restitution ordered to victims. The justices did not consider how a case involving restitution should be resolved.


I don't think that covers a seperate civil lawsuit. That is only if the judge says I sentence you to x years and y dollars to be paid to the victims.
 
2013-10-03 08:16:39 AM  
So if businesses are people and lets say, my business scammed a couple hundred people out of their 401K, and my business dies via bankruptcy, I get to keep the money?
 
2013-10-03 09:36:02 AM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: "You die a hero.  Or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."


Bingo.  In the case I am remembering from long ago, the defendant had murdered his previous wife, on whom he held a life insurance policy, and his surviving most recent wife stood to profit from the payout if the charges against him were dropped when he died.
 
2013-10-03 12:02:22 PM  

Loki009: wildcardjack: That reminds me... Since Walter White died before he could be convicted, wouldn't all the assets seized revert since at the Federal level the case would be dismissed. It's something I picked up when that Enron CEO popped off between his conviction and sentencing.

Also, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea is sooo Minnesota.

I believe the federal government would file civil asset forfeiture proceedings against his assets and his estate. You don't need to be alive for that.


But since the criminal charges don't exist then what's the foundation of the civil asset forfeiture?
 
2013-10-03 12:53:39 PM  
I have never liked the federal rule, myself. The best answer is to simply stop the legal proceedings where they are at and call it a day. We shouldn't be promising justice in the abstract but justice to a specific person.  If one dies during the appeals process one got all the justice one could get in this life.
 
2013-10-03 05:24:10 PM  
Isn't this why we never got money back from Ken Lay?
 
2013-10-03 06:11:42 PM  
If there's an appeal, it's because the person didn't get a fair trial. Defendants have a right to one of those. I think when it comes to constitutional law, that's one of the big ones.
 
2013-10-03 08:04:04 PM  

wildcardjack: Loki009: wildcardjack: That reminds me... Since Walter White died before he could be convicted, wouldn't all the assets seized revert since at the Federal level the case would be dismissed. It's something I picked up when that Enron CEO popped off between his conviction and sentencing.

Also, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea is sooo Minnesota.

I believe the federal government would file civil asset forfeiture proceedings against his assets and his estate. You don't need to be alive for that.

But since the criminal charges don't exist then what's the foundation of the civil asset forfeiture?


In a civil forfeiture the government is actually suing the property, not the individual. The government then has to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not) that the asset is from a criminal act. The owner is a claimant and can lay that they have a legitimate claim to the asset.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report