The issue remains, though, that if he were alive all this evidence would result in a trial -- at which the prosecution would have had to prove their case beyond

The issue remains, though, that if he were alive all this evidence would result in a trial -- at which the prosecution would have had to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused would have the opportunity to defend himself, to have legal representation, to present evidence that might call into question or contradict aspects of the prosecution's case, etc. As it stands, it seems that due process has been bypassed. I'm troubled by the idea that in the case of a dead defendant, it's OK to bring in a guilty verdict on the basis of an entirely one-sided "trial".