PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Dec 9, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act of 2006 - Amends the federal criminal code to establish guidelines for federal criminal cases in which a defendant dies before entry of a final judgment of guilt (deceased defendants).
Provides, as a general rule, that the death of a defendant who has been convicted of a federal criminal offense shall not be the basis for abating or otherwise invalidating a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, a verdict returned, a sentence announced, or a judgment entered prior to the death of such defendant, or for dismissing or invalidating the indictment, information, or complaint on which such a plea, verdict, sentence, or judgment is based, except as provided by this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires a trial court, in a case in which a defendant admits guilt or is found guilty by a jury, but dies before final judgment, to: (1) enter a judgment with the notation that the defendant died before judgment was entered; and (2) commence a special restitution proceeding upon the motion of the government or any victim of the defendant's crime.
Permits the use of a guilty plea of a deceased defendant in subsequent civil proceedings.
Allows the personal representative of a defendant's estate to file an appeal of the deceased defendant's conviction and of other matters involving such defendant. Provides rules for appointment of counsel, tolling of filing dates, and restitution for pending litigation involving a deceased defendant.
Allows the government to seek, or continue to pursue, civil forfeiture of property related to the deceased defendant's crime, subject to the applicable statute of limitations.
Makes this Act applicable to any criminal case or appeal pending on or after July 1, 2006.
People & committees
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR 12/8/2006 S11840-11841)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR 12/8/2006 S11840-11841)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 12/8/2006 S11840-11841)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 12/8/2006 S11840-11841)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10971-10973)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.4055 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.4055 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.4055 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.4055 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.