You are 100 percent right on all the posts here. It is amazing that people are so misinformed about property rights. The house and all its contents belonged to the husband and wife. If the wife dies, it belongs to the husband 100 percent, including the right to determine who goes in there. IF the property of another person is in the house, for example a lawnmower borrowed by Scott, that person is not allowed to enter and take it. The proper action is to ask a court to get it back for you. It seems that none of the property taken by the Rochas belonged to them. If it belonged to Laci at the time of her death, it belonged to Scott when she died. The Rocha's only right was to ask Scott to give it to them to be a nice guy, which it looks like he was willing to do.
It was a burglary, pure and simple, one which the police allowed to occur while they watched. The Rochas had no colorable right to possess the items they took.
Convict him, sue him in court, get a judgment, then take the house and everything in it. Do it the right way, or else it may be your ex-mother in law with a friend in the police force showing up at your door while you are on vacation and saying it's a civil matter while she steals your stuff.
Are you speaking for your state, or the state of California? And if the latter, are you an attorney? I ask because some California attorneys on FNC insisted otherwise--that the house is not in fact owned by Scott until this case is decided one way or the other. If he is found guilty, they say, the house will go to Laci's heirs, probably her parents.
I must agree with you. Laci and Scott owned that house and the property in joint tenancy as part of their community property. Laci's interest in that property is vacated and it becomes Scott's at the moment of her death. However, there is one caveat that must be considered... and I am not certain how it affects this case. In California a convicted murdered is not permitted to inherit any of his victim's property. At this point in time, Scott has not been convicted so the property MUST, by law, be his. When and if he IS convicted, he cannot inherit. But this property was held in joint tenancy... and the laws of inheritance may not apply.
This brings up interesting questions. Can Scott convert the joint assets and utilize the funds in his defense? If his defense costs are such that his assets are completely exhausted and he is still convicted, it would mean that Laci's assets were used to defend her killer... and her heirs, her parents and siblings, would be left with nothing. Does the court freeze the joing assets? Can Scott only spend half of the assets on his defense?