Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Court Dumps Rule Erasing Convictions For The Dead
August 24, 2006
By Associated Press
OLYMPIA - Convictions will no longer disappear simply because a defendant dies during appeal, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The decision scraps a nearly century-old legal rule called "abatement," which wipes out convictions and legal debts when a person dies before exhausting their appeals.
Abatement originally was meant to keep a convict's heirs from inheriting legal debts. But the high court said the doctrine conflicts with newer laws that emphasize victims' rights and cut off the presumption of innocence after conviction.
The same legal principle still exists in other courts. It's an issue in the case of Ken Lay, the Enron Corp. founder whose federal conviction on fraud and other charges has been questioned because of his death.
Thursday's state Supreme Court ruling centered on the case of Jules Devin, who was found guilty of shooting his daughter-in-law in the face but had the verdict wiped out when he died while seeking an appeal.
The court reinstated Devin's conviction, saying the abatement rule shouldn't apply because Devin didn't file an appeal notice on time.
But the majority went further, erasing the abatement doctrine altogether over objections from Justice Richard Sanders.
Majority justices said the early 20th century aim of shielding innocent heirs from legal debt shouldn't apply to modern orders for victims' compensation.
By deleting such payments to victims, the abatement rule "threatens to deprive victims of restitution that is supposed to compensate them for losses caused by criminals," Chief Justice Gerry Alexander wrote for the court.
"If our state's goal is to ward off potential harm to innocent people, it makes no sense to protect the heirs of criminals but not their victims," the majority said.
Erasing convictions also can unfairly harm victims by causing emotional distress, the high court said. The state retains the ability to hear the appeals of dead people, and may decide not to collect legal fines that would unfairly burden a convict's heir.
In a short, separate opinion, Sanders agreed with the narrower ruling in the Devin case but argued that the court's abatement analysis was essentially discussion of a moot point, and should not be binding.
Though overturned in Washington state courts, the abatement doctrine remains in place elsewhere - including the federal courts, where Lay's lawyers are asking that his convictions for fraud, conspiracy and lying to banks in two separate cases be erased.
Lay was convicted on May 25, and died of heart disease July 5.
MORE evidence our state is run by judicial idiots.
You better PRAY one of your crazy uncles doesn't get convicted of a crime - at least in WA - YOU could be sued, if you have the deepest pockets in your family after the convicts death.
I may be wrong but my take on this is it prevents the estate from being passed on before the victim is paid. I dont think an heir will be sued.
"If our state's goal is to ward off potential harm to innocent people, it makes no sense to protect the heirs of criminals but not their victims," the majority said.
If it's like some have said and the debt is applied to the estate before inheritance with anything unpaid remaining that way, then I see no need for a new law, as that's the way it already works. If it does fall upon the inheritors to finish paying the debt, then it is against federal law, as it is illegal in America to inherit debt. When you die, your debts die with you, though they will be applied to your estate and life insurance.
