Back to life means back to prison

As an attorney, there are times when I think I’ve heard it all, and then something else comes along that leaves me shaking my head. That happened the other day when I read about Iowa inmate Benjamin Schreiber’s latest court ruling.

Schreiber was sentenced in 1997 to life without the possibility of parole for his conviction of first degree murder. I’d imagine that this type of sentence leaves one with plenty of time to ponder ways to magically be released from prison. In 2015, Schreiber fell ill while locked up, and was found unconscious. At the hospital, he had to be resuscitated five times, and was diagnosed with sepsis caused by kidney stones. He claimed that the hospital ignored his do not resuscitate order and did so anyways.

Schreiber attempted to use his unfortunate health issues as a ticket out – he claimed that his resuscitations left him dead, albeit briefly, and due to his “death,” he’d already served his life sentence. Any further time in prison was illegal and he should be released immediately! And in case you are wondering, yes, he actually has an attorney listed as his counsel on the appeal to the Iowa Court of Appeals. The state won its motion to dismiss in district court, with the lower court noting that “ ‘[t]he petitioner’s filing of these proceedings in itself confirms the petitioner’s current status as living.’ ”

While Schreiber agreed that he was sentenced to life without parole, this sentence was not “ ‘…Life plus one day.’ ” Like many prisoners, he claimed violations of rights enumerated in the Due Process Clause, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Not surprisingly, he had no case law to back up his argument (to be fair, it is rather unique).

The Iowa Court of Appeals didn’t buy what Schreiber was selling, and on November 6, 2019, it opined that the correct reading of the statute required him to “stay in prison for the rest of his natural life, regardless of whether he was resuscitated against his wishes in 2015.” The lower court did not err in dismissing his postconviction-relief (PCR) application. The Court also stated, “Schreiber is either alive, in which case he must remain in prison, or he is dead, in which case this appeal is moot.” Legal opinions are often dry and humorless, but the Court got some zingers in when writing this one. A footnote provides more fodder, stating “[g]iven Schreiber appears to have signed his name on the PCR application and his motion for reconsideration – both filed after his “death” – we find this possibility [of his death] unlikely.”

Most people are grateful for successful resuscitation when they are in a life or death situation, but I guess I shouldn’t expect a murderer to value life. Barring any unlikely victorious appeal, it appears the Court has “pulled the plug” on Schreiber’s dreams of release.