If the accused dies during a criminal trial, I’m pretty sure that the case just ends without his being found guilty, right?
What happens if he dies after he’s found guilty, but he’s already appealed? Do they just say, too bad, he was guilty, and now he can’t appeal? What if the conviction was wrong and the appeal would have fixed it? Is there any way for a family to get their good name back under these conditions?
I’ve heard that if an accused dies between a guilty verdict (or plea) and sentencing, he is not considered to have been convicted, but I don’t know about what happens if he dies when the case is on appeal.
My guess is that appeal would be discontinued as moot and the conviction would stand.
Good question!
In Virginia, we don’t seem to have any rule or case law that addresses this question. We do have a rule of civil procedure regarding substitution of parties in the event of a death, but it’s clearly not meant to apply to a criminal proceeding. I strongly suspect that an appeal is mooted by the death of the appellant.
My gut feel is that the underlying conviction should be voided, as well. An appeal is a critical part of the system for deciding guilt or innocence. A defendant who dies before appellate review is completed has not obtained final adjudication of his claim, most especially the chance (as you mention in the OP) to correct any errors made by the trial court. There is no constitutional right to an appeal, but once that right is conferred by statute, it may not be indiscriminately denied.
Looking to federal law for guidance, my “gut feel” reaction seems at least defensible; there is a general acceptance of the principle that the death of a petioner during the pendency of his appeal abates the appeal and the underlying prosecution ab initio. In other words, his “good name” is cleared, since the entire prosecution void from the start - considered as if it never happened.
The basis for this seems to be Durham v. US, 401 US 481 (1971). In that case, the Supremes said that death pending direct review of a criminal conviction abates not only the appeal but also all proceedings had in the prosecution since its inception. The Court noted the unanimity of opinion of the lower federal courts in this regard.
However, in 1976, in Dove v. US, 423 US 325, they dismissed a petition for writ of certiorari after notice that the petitioner had died, and overruled Durham to the extent it was inconsistent with the Court’s ruling in Dove.
With that patchwork of decisions in place, the distinguishing characteristics between them seem to be as follows: Durham stands for the proposition that death of a defendant pending an appeal as of right, or direct review, results in abatement ab initio, and Dove providing the rule that for the death of a defendant pending discretionary or collateral review of a conviction, the conviction stands.
In short, while it depends on the state, I would say you can make a good argument for death during an appeal resulting in the appeal beasing abated, and the underlying conviction being erased.
This was a very interesting question!
They do give pardons posthumously to people. I believe Sacco and Vanzetti received ones from Gov. Michael Dukakis and I think that Dr. Samuel Mudd got a pardon from either Carter or Reagan.
Would these be considered different types of cases?
Bricker, disregarding the latin, big words, and legal phrasing (brain hurt! not good!), what about this hypothetical situation:
Jim is convicted of murdering his wife Betty for the inheritance money. Since he murdered her, he’s no longer a legal heir, so the money goest to Betty’s daughter Jane. But Jim appeals the ruling and dies during the appeal. So Jim is absolved and becomes the legal heir. Jim had made a testament leaving everything to his son Bill. Jane is disinherited and the money given to Bill?
I’m sure more tortuous minds (read: law professors) can come up with many more examples. Comments?
My guess is that the answer will be “Wait till a case like this comes to court, and once the judge decides, you’ll have your answer.”
I think in this case, Jane can rest easy. She’ll get the dough.
Just because Jim’s criminal conviction is voided doesn’t mean that the insurance company has to pay him. Those are, in fact, two separate proceedings. I’m no expert on insurance, but I imagine the company only has to show by preponderance of the evidence that Jim killed Betty in order to not cough up the cash.
Remember OJ, acquitted at the criminal trial but liable at the civil trial? Sort of the same deal here. Jim’s death stops the criminal wheels from turning, but not the civil ones.
Insurance? I was talking about inheritance, where Betty had made a will leaving everything to Jim, but since Jim was convicted of murdering Betty, the money instead went to the nearest relative, Jane. (or do I have inheritance law muddled up too?) Would the “abatement ab initio” revert the money to Jim’s heirs? (now you’ll tell me that I’ve used abatement ab initio in the wrong context)
I suppose that from what you’re saying the money would still go to Jane.
D’oh! For some bizarre reason, I read this as asking about collecting insurance proceeds even though it clearly says inheritance.
I must be going nuts.
Anyway, I’m also no expert on inheritance, but I suspect your theory is correct.
Which seems a particularly unjust result, I concede…
My understanding of inheritance is that it would generally work the same, with a killer being disqualified from inheriting from his victim, though this is a matter of state law, so the details may vary. I think that the probate court handling the estate of the victim will hold a trial-like hearing to hear evidence on whether or not the killer was in fact the killer and therefore disqualified.
I remember this from my Estates Law course, because my professor was into these sorts of things. I don’t have citations, though.
Well, you’re miles ahead of me, in light of the fact that you remember SOMETHING from Estates. 
What would the standard of proof be in such a proceeding, do you think? Could Bill the son appear as a party in interest? Jane? The estate?
If you could get Betty to show up, then you’d have a case! 
Change Your Password, Please and don’t use HTML, as it has been disabled, but you can learn about superscripts here