Life insurance policy two days before death

[yottaflop]

State: California

Question - would a jury be allowed to hear evidence that a wife took out an insurance policy two days before the husbands death? Would they further be allowed to hear that she chose not to collect on the policy? Would they further be allowed to hear speculation that *not* collecting the policy taken two days before the death is suspicious? Would they be allowed to hear that most policies have a clause stating that they will investigate due to fraud if the death happens within X days of the policy, and hence, not taking out the policy was a way to avoid having the insurance company do a more detailed investigation than the police were likely to do? And finally that there was no reason to not collect on the policy unless they were complicit?

Basically, I'm trying to put together a murder case that occurred decades ago, and this is one of the most suspicious things to me. What do you think?

 

[sandyclaus]

State: California

Question - would a jury be allowed to hear evidence that a wife took out an insurance policy two days before the husbands death? Would they further be allowed to hear that she chose not to collect on the policy? Would they further be allowed to hear speculation that *not* collecting the policy taken two days before the death is suspicious? Would they be allowed to hear that most policies have a clause stating that they will investigate due to fraud if the death happens within X days of the policy, and hence, not taking out the policy was a way to avoid having the insurance company do a more detailed investigation than the police were likely to do? And finally that there was no reason to not collect on the policy unless they were complicit?

Basically, I'm trying to put together a murder case that occurred decades ago, and this is one of the most suspicious things to me. What do you think?

Personally, I think that if there were a clause in the policy that made collecting on it within x days of issuance, and then NOT actually making a claim on such a policy, makes it look less suspicious. Why would someone waste their money paying for a policy they couldn't colllect on due to a potential fraud and/or murder charge? It makes no sense to do something so deliberately and then cut themselves off at the knees.

It's all about relevance. The judge isn't going to allow a theory of the crime if it isn't credible, and especially if it's presented solely to sensationalize the trial. If you're so bound and determined to try someone for murder, I think you're going to have to come up with a different and more believable theory.

 

[Proserpina]

Perhaps what's more important would be the cause and manner of death

 

[Antigone*]

State: California

Question - would a jury be allowed to hear evidence that a wife took out an insurance policy two days before the husbands death? Would they further be allowed to hear that she chose not to collect on the policy? Would they further be allowed to hear speculation that *not* collecting the policy taken two days before the death is suspicious? Would they be allowed to hear that most policies have a clause stating that they will investigate due to fraud if the death happens within X days of the policy, and hence, not taking out the policy was a way to avoid having the insurance company do a more detailed investigation than the police were likely to do? And finally that there was no reason to not collect on the policy unless they were complicit?

Basically, I'm trying to put together a murder case that occurred decades ago, and this is one of the most suspicious things to me. What do you think?

I think that you should stop watching those black widow crime dramas on Discovery Channel.