If an official dies after being impeached, does that bar the Senate from holding a trial?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Topic

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd assume so the same way there's no trial held for someone who is indicted but dies before trial begins.

[Donerail]

The sole penalty for impeachment is removal from office (and possible future disqualification); death already serves to remove the individual from office and disqualify him from holding future offices, so I'm not sure how or why you would proceed with a trial.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The sole penalty for impeachment is removal from office (and possible future disqualification); death already serves to remove the individual from office and disqualify him from holding future offices, so I'm not sure how or why you would proceed with a trial.

There would be nothing to prevent Congress from doing this, although it would be blatantly political and pointless. 

It's kind of like the Chief Justice presiding over the Senate.  If the Senators don't like the Chief Justice's ruling they can vote to overrule it.  Impeachment and Removal Trials are purely political proceedings.  Period.

[Ferguson97]

Trump's trial was held after he was already out of office, so I don't see why death would be any different from finishing a term. Reminder that barring someone from office is separate from convicting them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump's trial was held after he was already out of office, so I don't see why death would be any different from finishing a term. Reminder that barring someone from office is separate from convicting them.

If they are dead what is the point of holding a trial to see if they should be barred from office or not.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump's trial was held after he was already out of office, so I don't see why death would be any different from finishing a term. Reminder that barring someone from office is separate from convicting them.

If they are dead what is the point of holding a trial to see if they should be barred from office or not.

The Congress could hold such a hearing.  It wouldn't actually be a trial, but it could be a fact-finding hearing with testimony.  There would, however, have to be a defined LEGISLATIVE purpose behind it.

[ꙮ]

I would think that the Senate could complete the process if they have already started, but it would be completely pointless.

[Ferguson97]

Trump's trial was held after he was already out of office, so I don't see why death would be any different from finishing a term. Reminder that barring someone from office is separate from convicting them.

If they are dead what is the point of holding a trial to see if they should be barred from office or not.

I didn't say there would be a point, I'm just saying it's probably constitutional to do it.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think this would probably be ruled unconstitutional.

It is not constitutional to try a dead person for a criminal offense in the US, because a defendant has a constitutional right to confront their accusers, and a dead person cannot do this.

Of course, not all rights that apply to criminal trial apply to impeachment trials.  So the answer to this is not obvious.  But if I had to guess, I think the Supreme Court would hold that the right to mount a defense is substantively fundamental enough to the concept of a “trial” that it would apply to impeachment trials as well.

[brucejoel99]

I would think that the Senate could complete the process if they have already started, but it would be completely pointless.

I think they could "complete the process" procedurally insofar as passing a motion to dismiss with the proceedings on account of mootness by voice vote, but other than that, there's really no need, politically, constitutionally, or legally speaking, unless the House & at least a Senate majority's (in this instance) sole goal is to trash a dead person lol