Every media reference to Tamerlan Tsarnaev refers to him as a “suspect.” Is there any legal event that could cause him to be properly posthumously referred to as a criminal?
I know they can’t try a dead body, but will he forever be the “suspect,” as though we can’t be sure?
I don’t believe there can be a trial, since he can’t participate in his own defense. Wouldn’t be much point in going to the trouble and expense of a trial anyway, because you couldn’t administer any punishment in the event of a “guilty” verdict.
I recall several cases were closed upon the death of the suspect. Can’t try a dead man, can’t convict without a trial.
ETA: He’s only not a criminal in the eyes of the law. We all know what he is. We don’t have to call him an alleged bomber, and neither does the news, that’s also just a legal definition. He’s a criminal, a terrorist, an idiot, a coward, and an asshole, among other things that we’re free to call him.
I suspect (heh) that when his brother is convicted, he will become “the other bomber” rather than the “suspected bomber.”
This.
Every person charged with a crime is entitled to defend themselves. Since Tamerlan is dead, he can’t offer a meaningful defense.
It used to be centuries ago in England that a felony conviction could result in your heirs being unable to inherit from you (corruption of blood). Apparently some people might have been tempted to commit suicide so as to die in an unconvicted state. Once you were dead, the government couldn’t grab as much.
I admit that the fact that Tamerlan more or less suicided by cop leads one to want to find some satisfactory end, but if you were to allow prosecutions against the dead you’d have to decide the boundaries of the allowance. What if some hotshot DA decided to posthumously charge Abraham Lincoln with burglary, second degree rape, and aggravated mopery that the DA alleges Lincoln committed in Champaign, IL in 1855? Should we allow the case to proceed and potentially result in history books branding Lincoln a rapist? Who would defend him? While we’re at it, let’s charge Ronald Reagan with stalking and resisting arrest in Alexandria, VA and charge C. Everett Koop with possession of a sawed-off shotgun and DUI in Philadelphia.
If the news reports that Tamerlan was a bomber/terrorist/killer (and not just a suspect), then his brother is guilty by association. The evidence connecting the two is so strong that you really can’t have a scenario where only one of them is guilty. Either both are innocent or both are guilty, at least as an accessory.
Once Dzokhar is convicted, they’ll stop referring to Tamerlan as a suspect.
Also, the trial for Dzokhar is going to essentially try Tamerlan as well, since his best defense is to say his brother coerced him or brainwashed him or something.
The death of a criminal defendant and subsequent dismissal of the charge is known as an Abatement.
Since he was not charged before he died, he is NOT a criminal, just a suspect.
I keyed in; abatement; with a few select words. and got this about MA;
Traditionally, the death of a criminal defendant following conviction, but before an appeal can be made, is a ground for abatement. 37
Don’t worry. By the end of the year, he will be forgotten and his name will never be mentioned again.
Abatement also occurred with Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron. He was convicted at trial, filed an appeal, then died. Since an appeal was pending at the time he died, the conviction was set aside.
The only reason for a media outlet to refrain from calling him a bomber is fear of defamation suits. He’s dead, and can’t be defamed, so this is really just habitual ass-covering which happens to be unnecessary.
Is the same distinction made for non-citizen bad guys? Take the 9/11 hijackers. They were never tried, of course, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen them referred to as suspects.
I am not even anything close to a lawyer, or American for that matter, but my understanding is that when people die in unnatural ways, for instance getting blown up by terrorists, the coroner has to have an inquest into their deaths.
At the inquest, the coroner can name a person as the guilty party. I’m guessing that after the inquest into the deaths of the people in Boston, Tsarnaev will cease to be a “suspect”. You can’t try a dead man, but a coroner can find that a (now) dead man committed murders.
Coroner’s reports identify the cause of death, not the killer.
According the the Wiki page, in the US:
In some parts of the US, the Coroner is called the Medical Examiner instead.
Yes, exactly. Feel free to call the dead guy anything you want. Media types just have “suspect” seared into their brains if there’s been no conviction.
It’s a professional ethics thing, not a legal choice. I think courts have found that calling someone an “alleged” criminal is not a defense against libel suits. And yes, after the brother is convicted I expect the “suspect” thing will go away - because Dzokhar will be charged with planning and executing this terrorist attack with his brother, and it stands to reason that if he’s convicted the court accepts that Tamerlan was guilty, too.
I think dracoi is right - it’s all about Dzokhar and his presumed innocence until conviction. Because the two are inseperably linked, the media is proceding with caution in their descriptions of Tamerlan. I don’t think the media is particularly concerned with Tamerlan’s reputation.
AND if you’re convicted of a crime–even murder–and die while your conviction is being appealed, you are considered innocent. My cite is the tale of Joseph Pikul