Sometimes when I hear a about a murder, I’ll hear someone say an autopsy is performed to determine a cause of death. A lot of times, the cause is obvious, like a gunshot. Why do they still have to do this ?
If it’s determined that something else killed the victim, like a heart attack, is the accused off the hook ?
Thanks.
Well, IANAL, but I think if you shoot a dead guy, you’re not going to be accused of much other than being a bit of a wing-nut.
From the many episodes of CSI that I have watched, I have concluded that people can sometimes try to disguise the cause of death in order to get away with a crime.
I assume that is the reason for the autopsy.
Sometimes it’s not so obvious, like people who died in a fire but bullets are found in them during the autopsy. Sometimes they’re trying to determine time of death, or if it appeared to be a murder on the surface but was a suicide (or vice versa), or if the person had any underlying health conditions that might be a factor. Maybe a dead woman was pregnant, and her lover killed her after an argument about the baby. Maybe the person had a chronic disease and is trying to get an insurance payoff to next-of-kin, but suicide won’t pay out and they don’t want to die slowly and be a burden.
Sometimes you can find forensic evidence during the autopsy as well. Anyway, you need to have a documented cause of death in murders and other violent deaths; to some extent it’s probably a formality.
They want as much information as they can get, too, anytime a person dies (whether or not it’s foul play). The bullet itself is not fatal; it has to do something to the inside of the person. Did it cause them to bleed to death, did it make them unable to breathe, did it sever important nerves? Also, if there’s any question about who actually did the shooting, looking at the path of the bullet after impact can give information on which direction it was fired from (was the murderer the guy on the balcony, the guy in the basement apartment window, or the lady across the street)?
It’s not quite as clear-cut as that. While you would be off the hook for murder, you could be charged with attempted murder. Consider the following scenario.
I want to kill Mr. X. In order to do so, I wait until I think he will be asleep, then I creep into his bedroom and shoot him while he is lying there. The ME performs the autopsy and determines that he died of a heart attack before I shot him, but I did not know this.
I could (and probably would) be charged with the attempted murder of Mr. X becuase I commited all the elements of the crime.
discalimer: IANAL, but this is my interpretation of the law to my understanding.
I’m only familiar with the law in Illinois, but I imagine most state’s have the same kinds of laws. In Illinois, the determination of whether autopsies are done is in the hands of the county coroner. In cases where the death is “suspicious, obscure, mysterious, or otherwise unexplained and in the opinion of the examining physician or the coroner the cause of death cannot be established definitely except by autopsy,” the coroner is supposed to have an autopsy done. In cases such as you pointed out, where the cause of death is obvious, autopsies are still performed because, if there is even a chance of it being a homocide, the State will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, what the cause of death is. That’s why a vast majority of violent deaths are given autopsies.
I am also not a lawyer, or a police officer or any such thing, but I have taken/am taking Administration of Justice classes at the local community college, so I declare myself…an expert! In your attempt to kill Mr X, you committed a crime (trespassing), which you could, and most likely would, be charged with. Also (at least in CA) if someone dies as a result of your committing a crime, you can be charged with their murder. So, if the DA could put together a case saying that Mr X died, not because you shot him, but because you frightened him when you broke in, you would be charged with first degree murder. The real bummer is that Tyrone, your getaway driver (who was in the car the whole time) can also be charged with the murder of Mr X.
It depends.
I’m not a lawyer, a cop, or a coroner, but I’ve been to the scenes of several deaths in my time as an EMT. In my area (southern Indiana/northern Kentucky), police are generally dispatched to the scene of any death that doesn’t happen in a care facility/hospital unless it’s a suspicious one. Cops generally won’t respond to a 90 year old who died in a nursing home.
If someone is discovered dead at their home, they will respond. They talk to any family that might be present to obtain information, including factors that may be related to the death. If there doesn’t seem to be any obvious signs that it wasn’t natural causes, they’ll usually leave the scene once the coroner arrives.
Once the coroner does his autopsy, he issues a report. I’m fairly sure that law enforcement gets a copy of this, as well. In it, he/she lists the cause of death, which would indicate whether the police need to continue their investigation. Mitigating factors may include the identity of the person, among others.
If the deceased is under a doctor’s care – in the hospital or nursing home – there’s usually no autopsy, or even a visit from the police.
If it happens at home, then a coroner would be called in to confirm the cause, but unless there’s something fishy, there’s no autopsy, either (do you think a place like New York City can do an autopsy of everyone who died at home?). A doctor friend of my parents was a local coroner (it wasn’t a separate office) and would be called to confirm cause of death, but AFAIK did not routinely do autopsies (though if it were needed, there was a county coroner’s office to handle it).
An exception is that if you’re home under hospice care, neither the cops nor the coroner is called in. My father-in-law was in hospice at home; when he died, we only needed to notify the funeral home.
A lot of forensic autopsies are done in cases of unexpected death in which foul play is not suspected - for instance, a relatively young person dies suddenly. Was it a cardiac problem or is there another explanation? These cases can have considerable relevance to persons related to the deceased. On occasion a homicide is uncovered.
It’s another matter if a person with a longstanding serious medical problem dies at home in circumstances which make it highly likely their condition was fatal. Families can request autopsies in such cases, but a medical examiner/coroner’s office would likely defer to whatever hospital/academic institution in the area does them.
In fiction people are frequently shooting people who are already dead. The autopsy is needed to prove the offense is merely disturbing a corpse instead of murder. I suppose such circumstances occur in real life once in a while.
Do they do autopsies on zombies? 
No. Way too risky. 
Erle Stanley Gardner - in his D.A. series, not Perry Mason - one-upped everyone on this. Yes, the corpse was shot to confuse who the real killer was.
The twist was that the second shooter put the bullet exactly into the first hole.
Here is a copy of the Coronial Checklist in my state in Australia. It makes very explicit which events surrounding a death make it a possible coroner’s case.
There was a Toronto policeman convicted of attempted murder recently (this being Canada). The victim was having an episode and approached him waving a knife, so the police officer shot him. That shooting was considered justifiable (although perhaps unnecessary). Once the victim was down, the police officer then shot him several more times.
The autopsy could not determine if the first shot killed him or not, or if the first shot would have eventually killed him - so the charge for the subsequent shots was attempted murder, rather than actual murder.
I remember at least two Perry Mason stories involving shenanigans with shooting dead bodies. One was rather mundane, woman shoots man she thought was sleeping but he was already dead, poisoned I think. I can’t recall much plot from another one but it was based on loading a rifle cartridge with a too small bullet that would wobble when shot and leave a keyhole shaped wound. Then I think the right size bullet was somehow introduced.
The ‘through and through’, shooting another bullet through an existing bullet wound was used in the film True Believer.
Some additions to the above:
A family can request an autopsy. So even if coroner does not think one is necessary, it can still be requested and required.
Generally a death certificate will list the cause(s) of death. This is done by someone at the hospital or the deceased primary doctor (who in the case of a hospital recently came to now the deceased, or in the case of the primary doctor has not seen/treated the deceased in some time). The causes of death are not necessarily wrong, but determining the actual cause of death can be a little subjective. An autopsy is a way to get more in-depth and a better look. This might be done when it’s not a criminal situation, but a civil one (wrongful death lawsuit).
Well, the family can request an autopsy and generally a pathologist can be found to do one, but the family might end up paying for it depending on circumstances. There’s no legal requirement outside of an official determination that it’s a medicolegal case.
Yea, my phrasing was poor. The family would pay for it (if the family is the only one who wants it) and the person they hired would perform it. Pretty similar to buying any other service. Or rather, re: a dead body, there are some things you can do, and some things you cannot do. An autopsy is something you can do, if the family so desires.