Rose Airaldi

Associate Editor

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2026

 

Picture this: A friends loved one is violently attacked one day. Doctors inform the family that there is a high likelihood they will die without a life support technique. The patient is put on life support and for months, despite no progress, friends and family remain hopeful. Around the one-year anniversary of the attack, the family learns of the “year-and-a-day” rule. The “ ” rule is a rule providing that a defendant cannot be convicted of homicide if their victim dies more than a year and a day after the act occurred. With this in mind, what decision should the family make? Do they abandon the hope they keep or forgo an opportunity to hold the perpetrator liable? This is an impossible decision to make and an unfair one to force upon grieving families. The “year-and-a-day” rule has been frequently criticized as due to the advancements in modern medicine that allow victims to live for an extended period of time after the actions against them. Several but it has not been eradicated at a federal level. Putting an end to the “year-and-a-day” rule would have wide-reaching effects on federal prosecution of violent offenders.

What is the importance of the Justice for Murder Victims Act?

In late February of this year, Senators Charles “Chuck” Grassley (R-Iowa) and Jon Ossoff (D-Ga) welcomed the unanimous passage of their bill in the Senate – the Justice for Murder Victims Act. This Act seeks to abolish the “year-and-a-day” rule and of homicide victims. Grassley believes that the year-and-a-day rule has been made completely arbitrary due to the ways in which medicine has advanced in the years since the rule was adopted.

If passed in the House, this bill would nationwide. The impact of this bill on federal courts would be profound. The Justice for Murder Victims Act would expand federal courts abilities to for their actions, even if their victims survive for more than a year after their attack. The bill ensures that victims and families alike can obtain justice without being tethered to an outdated rule from the Middle Ages.

However, it would not be without its challenges. The abolition of the year-and-a-day rule could make prosecuting homicide cases more arduous. An obvious “clear chain of causation” between the homicide and the attack may not always be readily available, especially when many years, or even decades, have passed.

S.3859 coincides with the major advances in modern medicine that allow victims to ‘live’ for much longer than ever before. Families use life supporting machines in hopes of their loved one achieving a “meaningful recovery”. This puts families in a predicament where they are faced with two choices: A) give up the hope they have for their loved one to seek justice or B) forfeit their crusade for justice on the chance their loved one heals themselves. Larry Cosme, President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, believes that the timing of the death of a victim should not negatively impact their ability to obtain justice. He says “After watching their loved ones fight to stay alive for over a year,

The next step for S.3859 is to make it through the House so it can be enacted into the legislature. S.3859 is supported by multiple different organizations, such as the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and the Murder Accountability Project – just to name a few. Bills like S.3859 are incredibly important for the future of the American judicial system in that they put victims and families above capricious, obsolete rules that are no longer applicable in our modern-day judiciary. The importance of S.3859 cannot be stressed enough as it is a monumental step in the right direction for victims’ rights and advocating for those who are unable to do so for themselves.