Hi
Other than Rhode Island, which other states deem prisoners serving life sentences ‘dead’ accordion to state law and which law is that?
The court cited a state law that reads in part: “Every person imprisoned in the adult correctional institutions for life shall … be deemed to be dead in all respects, as if his or her natural death had taken place at the time of conviction.”
In all respects? Dead people have no or very few rights?
Is a spouse considered a widow(er) can s/he remarry with no divorce? Is their estate settled? And what if they’re later exonerated?
From the Providence article linked in your link:
Here’s the provision. It seems to have been adopted originally in 1909, but amended many times since then.
There’s a saver so that “the bond of matrimony shall not be dissolved”, so the spouse would need to divorce before remarrying. But on the face of it it does look as though it would allow the next-of-kin to proceed to take out a grant of probate and distribute the estate as though the prisoner had died. Does any doper know if that is what actually happens in Rhode Island?
(linked to in OP’s linked article)
I wonder if its actually applied on a regular basis or was dug up for this matter - it sounds like the kind of law drafted by men wearing wigs and bearing muskets; I have difficulty believing a modern society applies this law as presented by The Providence Journal and NYPost.
And does it mean that the relatives get the life-insurance payout when their man goes to jail?
We have a similarly offensive kind of enforcement here: if you murder your parents, the state takes your share of the estate away from the survivors. Because it’s proceeds of crime. No way the grandchildren or siblings who just lost their parents are going to get that money…
The common law position is that you can’t inherit from someone you have murdered. Their estate is distributed as if you had died before your victim. Which means that it could, of course, go to your children.
Someone simply has to have made that into a murder mystery. Grandchild kills grandparent and frames his widower father for the crime so the grandson inherits. Or a man kills one of his parents and frames the other parent for the crime so the child inherits.
Wow, what an archaic law. Hard to believe it’s still on the books.
It’s actually not that “archaic” in terms of when it was adopted, since it’s just over 100 years old (adopted in 1909).
It’s quite archaic in terms of how it treats the convicted person. More to the point, I suspect it’s constitutionally suspect under the Due Process clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America. I may later today see if I can dig up the actual decision from the Rhode Island Supreme Court and see what they said about that, if anything.
Wouldn’t someone have to challenge it in Federal court to get a ruling on its US Constitutionality? Generally state courts only rule on their own constitution.
And even the legislative provision here wasn’t originally interpreted to mean that the government took the money away from the kids. But the state attorney took it to court, and the lawyer involved were quite proud of his win.
I don’t think it was Christie, oddly enough, but there was one.
Early 20th century - between the wars or immediately post WWII …
Male ‘amateur’ detective, possibly a woman author - Mignon Eberhart? No. Not an Ellery Queen, though.
There was a blind mute woman who was the key to the mystery; she was a witness, but they - the police? - did not take her seriously. The scent of vanilla?
The killer was …
12 year old boy
… but I’m not sure if inheritance was the motive.
This is going to drive me crazy, now. Where’s the “Name this book” thread …
I was wrong, it was Ellery Queen, The Tragedy of Y.
That’s often true, but you may raise U.S. constitutional issues in a state court:
Unless Congress clearly provides otherwise, state and municipal courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law. Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1981), 453 U.S. 473; California v. Arizona (1979), 440 U.S. 59. Nothing in the concept of the federal system prevents state courts from enforcing rights created by federal law. Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney (1962), 368 U.S. 502. The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized that the courts of this state enjoy such power. Herbst v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 8; Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 135.
From Muhammad v. Treasury Dept., Internal Revenue Serv., 167 Ohio Misc.2d 1 (2010).
To follow-up:
IF the issue of constitutionality under the provisions of the US Constitution was raised before the Rhode Island courts, then the losing side at the RISC could file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the SCotUS, asking that court to address the federal constitutional issues previously raised.
If the issue was NOT raised in the Rhode Island courts, then some party would most likely have to file a federal lawsuit to have the constitutionality under the federal constitution determined. However, something in the back of my brain tickles me into thinking that the SCotUS could hear the appeal directly anyway under certain limited circumstances. It’s sadly been too long since I was dealing with such stuff for me to recall if the back of my brain is right, or just playing games with me.
So if a prison guard murders a prisoner, it’s not a crime?
Too simple a concept. Not enough to fill out a 1:30 movie. (We are talking movie here, right? Not, … um, in real life.)
First the guard (a woman) had been framed by the future prisoner for his murder. She’s found guilty. Turns out the guy killed someone else to obtain the body. He’s found guilty of that crime and sentenced to life. The guard gets her job back in the same prison in RI. Now she can kill him.
She’ll be played by Ashley Judd in Double Jeopardy 2.
You left out the torrid love affair with the hunky warden. Mustn’t forget the torrid love affair.
Getting back to the jurisdiction issue, isn’t it implicit in the supremacy clause?
Article VI, clause 2 says that the judges of the state courts are bound by the federal Constitution. Doesn’t that mean they have jurisdiction to hear a claim based on the US Constitution?
For instance, don’t the state criminal courts routinely rule on issues of federal constitutional law, when they decide issues like Miranda warnings, and search and seizure law?