Geoghan's Death - Conviction Thrown Out?

Some more background I've found. I'm really stunned that the Supreme Court ruled this way and I'm very curious as to why.

From The Boston Globe:

"The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that if a defendant dies while his appeal is pending, the indictments are to be remanded to the trial court with an order that they be dismissed."

"In 1997, the Legislature tried to block the courts from clearing the records of inmates who die before their appeals are heard, after the convictions of John Salvi III were erased following his prison suicide. Salvi shot two women to death when he opened fire in two Brookline women's health clinics in 1994. The legislation, sponsored by then-Senator William R. Keating, now the Norfolk district attorney, passed in the Senate but not the House."

Surprised in San Diego.

BTW, do you still want to do the hot/cold, poor/rich thing?

You lost me, Craven - I must have asked something then forgot about it.....? PM me.

I think the idea behind this (and this is just a hunch on my part, no research done, sorry) is to not reward anyone who takes a hit out on a criminal.

At least as a "celebate" priest fixated on young boys, Geoghan's descendents will not be celebrating.

Gauguin was a terrific artist and the fact that he lived to the ripe old age of 155 is a testament to hi-? Oh. I see. You're talking about Geoghan. I must have misread the thread title. Sorry. Carry on.

I don't know of any other state that does the expungement automatically when the convict dies during an appeal Sugar. Seems to be another oddity confined to MA.

I was disgusted when I read that news today. Odd ruling.

arggghhh

silly massachusetts laws

Well, I found out why the conviction gets thrown out.

Due process, as defined by the federal courts, cannot be impinged upon by state courts, but can be added to. So, everyone in every state has the right to an attorney, a right to a fair and speedy trial, etc.. (whether these actually occur is another discussion).

However, Massachusetts decided to add more to the federal definition of due process - the SJC ruled that the appeals process is part of due process in this state - so if you croak during appeal, you did not receive due process under Mass state law, and the conviction no longer stands.

As to who made this idiotic decision, why it was made, and why the bill to change it was thrown out of the House....well, the boy blames it on the severe liberal government here, but I'm going to ask the boy's father and find out exactly who the House nitwits were that still think this is a good idea. Things like this give liberals a bad name - as a person with some liberal views, I still can't understand why anyone would rope in an appeal as due process which causes things like this to happen.

Just so I know who not to vote for....

Not to mention it's another fine example of why judges should not be appointed for life and we should be able to vote them out.

Apart from the way the victims feel, I think this ruling opens the door to a lot of issues regarding convictions. It's saying that a guilty verdict and a conviction isn't really a conviction - that the judicial process isn't really having a final say in court proceedings.

It redefines what a conviction is - just a 'maybe' and not a final legal stance. Meaning, when Geoghan received his conviction, it wasn't a conviction. A conviction would only truly be defined as a loss in an appeal.

Channel 4 News mentioned last night that this law is a hold-over from the founding of the MA Bay Colony! lol They also said there are 4 states that have such a law - MA, AK, ME and VT. I can see the 3 New England states having this as an old hold-over law but AK?