Over the years, stories of death row inmates have captivated the public , from chilling final letters to cryptic last words. But one case stands out not for how it ended, but for a surprising legal argument from beyond the brink.
Benjamin Edward Schreiber, a convicted murderer serving a life sentence without parole, made headlines when he claimed his sentence had technically ended, because he had momentarily died.
Schreiber was convicted in the 1990s for the brutal murder of John Terry, who was bludgeoned with an axe handle. But decades into his sentence at Iowa State Penitentiary, an unexpected medical emergency sparked a bizarre legal twist.
In March 2015, Schreiber was hospitalized with septic poisoning caused by large kidney stones. According to CNN, he lost consciousness in his cell and was rushed to the hospital, where his heart had to be restarted five times using a combination of IV adrenaline and epinephrine.
This life-saving intervention occurred despite an existing Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order. The Des Moines Register reported that his brother, contacted by hospital staff, instructed doctors: “If he is in pain, you may give him something to ease the pain, but otherwise you are to let him pass.”
Nevertheless, Schreiber was revived, underwent surgery, and eventually recovered.
Three years later, in April 2018, Schreiber filed for post-conviction relief. His argument? Since he had briefly died in 2015, his life sentence had been fulfilled.
The court, however, wasn’t convinced. In 2019, Judge Amanda Potterfield ruled against him, stating:
“Schreiber is either still alive, in which case he must remain in prison, or he is actually dead, in which case this appeal is moot.”
Court documents reinforced the ruling, noting:
“Petitioner asserts that he ‘died’ on March 30, 2015, and as a result… he has now served the life sentence and should be released… The court finds this assertion unpersuasive and without merit.”
They even added that the mere act of filing his appeal confirmed he was, in fact, alive.
Schreiber also argued that his due process rights were violated when doctors ignored his DNR wishe, but the court declined to address that issue in its decision.
Though his legal logic didn’t hold up in court, Schreiber’s case remains one of the most unusual arguments ever made by an inmate seeking release.
