Lay Case: It's Not Over

[Robbien]

By TOM FOWLER
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Prosecutors want Congress to quickly pass a law that would prevent Ken Lay's conviction from being wiped out because of his death.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a draft of a proposed law Wednesday in district court that would essentially prevent judges from vacating criminal convictions if a defendant dies before going through the entire appeals process.

Under current precedent, when a defendant dies, the conviction against him, even the indictment, can be thrown out. Lay's defense team has already filed a motion for such a move, citing a U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case involving a Texas man who was convicted but died before his appeals were exhausted.

But the government wants U.S. District Judge Sim Lake to delay ruling on the motion until after Oct. 23, the previously scheduled sentencing date for the late Enron chairman and his co-defendant and former CEO, Jeff Skilling, so Congress can consider the proposed law.

In the filing, the prosecutors argued that vacating the case is unfair to crime victims.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4168808.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. By all means, let's close this loophole. I'm sure the Republicans

would support it when they realize that someone will figure out that there might be a rash of peculiar suicides for defendants who have embarrassing information on well-connected individuals.

[0007]

2. Didn't Adolf Hitler die before his conviction?

[sofa king]

3. Might not hurt just in case the fellow isn't dead, too.

[Phrogman]

4. Amen to that!

[elehhhhna]

5. Will also help in civil cases brought after criminal actions.

[The Stranger]

6. That's unconstitutional -- it is a bill of attainder.

[RangerSmith]

9. no shit

this is a very sharp two sided sword.

Put you biases aside and take a hard look at the consequences of this piece of trash legislation.

[rinsd]

7. "vacating the case is unfair to crime victims"

Its also unfair to the accused.

I know some in their zeal to see Lay keep his conviction on the books (and really for what purpose? do you think years from now people earguing about Enron are going to debate his conviction status?) but this is a due process issue and everyone is granted due process from the wrongly accussed to shittiest human being on Earth.

That is how our system works or at least its supposed to.

[mccoyn]

8. I'm not sure Lay would be given the chance to face his accuser.

If there is someone else to prosecute they can go after them directly. If there is no one, then whats the point. Either way, why are we wasting money to get a conviction on someone who can't be penalized?

[StatGirl]

10. It's about the money

If he's not guilty, his heirs get to keep it. If he is convicted of stealing it, his estate has to give it back.