Anyone who dismisses this out of hand is a poor choice for legal advice. Any and every matter is potentially subject to judicial review and debate and APPEAL and therefore, may potentially have differing opinions, some of which may favor the underdog opinion for whatever reason.
This issue is not nearly as cut and dry as some make it seem and there IS precedent in numerous ways to look to for guidance, even if such guidance ultimately does not change a judicial opinion.
First, there is the definition of life v. death. If it has not been clearly and very specifically outlined to exhaustion, then there is room to argue. So a person declared clinically/legally dead one moment, may be revived and can legitimately argue they died. Its rare, but this is not about a widespread problem but rather a rarity in the law, which over a century across the globe will actually have numerous examples of possibilities.
Beyond defining life/death/sentencing in a particular jurisdiction, there is common-law or custom. Here are two customs:
If you are sentenced to hang, but the rope breaks, you are to be set free. It has happened with both outcomes of rehanging and also being set free.
When being stoned to death in some countries, it is a practice to be buried in the ground. If the recipient of the sentence is able to get free and run away, they are allowed to live. My understanding is that in some places, men are given an easier opportunity than women, but without a doubt, some have escaped and thus survived a death sentence.
I believe the electric chair, firing squads, lethal injections and other methods also have examples of “cheating the hangman”, so-to-speak. So its not all cut and dry 100% of the time. I think there is room to argue if one were to survive a technical death and depending on the wording of a particular jurisdiction, which could vary not only from state to state, but country to country and even culture to culture.
Beyond even all of that, as medical knowledge and tech advances, we may find that the line between life and death becomes even more confusing and as such, what is not possible or likely today may become possible or even common place in the future.
So there is absolutely some room to ask these questions and a good lawyer will, if they happen to have a client one day where this issue comes up.
For the nay-sayers who think they know 100% its not possible, I wouldn’t want them representing me, but would welcome them representing an opposing party.