Hey, lawyer pedes, I haven't had a chance to read the decision yet so maybe the wording is specific in this case, but can this "moot" point now be used in arguments in any case where the damage is already done and the court can't change the outcome?
Curious if "moot" could be argued in, say, a murder case.
No, mootness cannot be argued in a murder case. Mootness is a standard for when a remedy is no longer applicable to the case. For example, if you sue someone because there they threw trash in your yard and then they clean it up; if you try to continue the lawsuit it will be thrown out for mootness.
In the political context, mootness is another side of the ripeness coin--too early to hear it, too late to hear it, tough shit. It's SUPPOSED to be set aside when the issue at review is likely to reoccur, like, say, the Secretary of State and State Supreme Court effectively conspiring to ignore state constitutional law, but I guess that's just a big oopsie, what can we do. For comparison, Roe V Wade was decided AFTER Roe's baby was born. Her challenging for a right to have an abortion is moot on its face once a baby is born, but SCOTUS is no less political than any other branch of government.
That's a bad argument. A criminal trial is the state vs the defendant, not the dead person versus the defendant. The remedy is fines/parole/jail time, those remedies are always available and will never be moot.
Mootness wouldn't be the right term, but the effect is the same. You can't put an empty chair on trial. However, you could still sue an estate for wrongful death even after a defendant has died.
Mootness is primarily applicable to the civil context. I'm having a hard time thinking of a criminal context where mootness could apply except for a situation where the law you are being charged under is repealed or found unconstitutional before trial/sentencing.
That is a interesting thought. In most cases courts are ruling after the damage took place... that's what is so odd about this. It can have a effect so they should rule on it's merits.
Hey, lawyer pedes, I haven't had a chance to read the decision yet so maybe the wording is specific in this case, but can this "moot" point now be used in arguments in any case where the damage is already done and the court can't change the outcome?
Curious if "moot" could be argued in, say, a murder case.
No, mootness cannot be argued in a murder case. Mootness is a standard for when a remedy is no longer applicable to the case. For example, if you sue someone because there they threw trash in your yard and then they clean it up; if you try to continue the lawsuit it will be thrown out for mootness.
In the political context, mootness is another side of the ripeness coin--too early to hear it, too late to hear it, tough shit. It's SUPPOSED to be set aside when the issue at review is likely to reoccur, like, say, the Secretary of State and State Supreme Court effectively conspiring to ignore state constitutional law, but I guess that's just a big oopsie, what can we do. For comparison, Roe V Wade was decided AFTER Roe's baby was born. Her challenging for a right to have an abortion is moot on its face once a baby is born, but SCOTUS is no less political than any other branch of government.
Sending the killer to jail won't bring the dead person back to life therefore the case is moot. There's your argument.
frankly someone needs to find a way to make John Roberts moot. If Thomas was the head justice I think the other ducks would line up in a row.
That's a bad argument. A criminal trial is the state vs the defendant, not the dead person versus the defendant. The remedy is fines/parole/jail time, those remedies are always available and will never be moot.
Don't tell me, tell the Supreme Court who just made this a potential viable defense.
In fact, I'd like to see a legal team take that argument in a murder case to the Supreme Court just to see if we can make them contradict themselves.
I think the equivalent of mootness in a murder case would be a dead defendant. No need to hold a trial if there's no one to punish.
Mootness wouldn't be the right term, but the effect is the same. You can't put an empty chair on trial. However, you could still sue an estate for wrongful death even after a defendant has died.
Mootness is primarily applicable to the civil context. I'm having a hard time thinking of a criminal context where mootness could apply except for a situation where the law you are being charged under is repealed or found unconstitutional before trial/sentencing.
That is a interesting thought. In most cases courts are ruling after the damage took place... that's what is so odd about this. It can have a effect so they should rule on it's merits.
Reparations for slavery.
This is going to be fun to watch.