4 ms·

Can someone with legal experience interpret the dissent? I don't really understand the distinction he's making between "substantive entitlements" and "procedura

Can someone with legal experience interpret the dissent? I don't really understand the distinction he's making between "substantive entitlements" and "procedural due process".

otterley 10y ago
Very briefly: * Procedural law is the body of law around how a case is heard and handled: how to petition a court, how cases are adjudicated, jurisdiction (i.e. does the Court have the authority to handle this case), etc. * Substantive law is basically everything else. Rights, remedies, criminal law, civil law, administrative law, etc.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
What I'm gathering at a really brief read of it (and without legal experience), is that Thomas is suggesting that if the money collected is no longer the individual's property, there's no Constitutional or legal obligation for the government to return it. So, like, evidence collected generally remains property of the owner, and people can recollect it, but if fines or fees are paid or assets are seized, it assigns the property rights of something to the state, it's no longer the individual's property and hence they have no right to get it back... even if they were found innocent later of a court case. EDIT: cookiecaper's read on it is probably better than mine, go read that.
- will_brown 10y ago
  Not sure why you were down voted, that is basically the entire second part of Thomas' legal dissent. 1. Colorado law doesn't provide for an automatic refund when convictions are overturned, rather Colorado law provides a process and the defendant's didn't attempt to use the process (Therefore, no Constitutional violation in application of this law); 2. The Defendants here already lost their property rights, and so the Due Process Clause of the Constitution does not apply (Colorado doesn't need to provide any process to refund, so we don't need to even look at the Colorado Law to determine if the process is Unconstitutional).
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    I try not to read too much into why I got a downvote anymore. Maybe it's because people disagree with Thomas' opinion. Maybe it's because they think I read it poorly or said something technically incorrect (which is likely). For all I know, they saw an earlier comment of mine, disagreed, but couldn't downvote it and came and downvoted my most recent comment instead. Who knows, it happens. People on the Internet are baffling.
  - pishpash 10y ago
    Well, 1 is pendant on 2. If 2 is invalid then 1 is also irrelevant. It is really hard to argue that the defendants have lost their property rights or that a contractually legal property transfer occurred. It was "seized" after all.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      If the seizure was legally conducted based on the law, then ownership of the property in question arguably has been transferred. Obviously asset seizure in itself is not illegal. And so Thomas' argument hinges on the concept that since it's no longer their property, they have no Constitutional rights regarding it's return. I don't think it's a wholly invalid point, even if the result is terrible. And obviously the rest of the court decided to lean in favor of the common man, which I think is a general good.
      - pishpash 10y ago
        Well, the state has to release their bodies upon the overturning of their conviction. If the point is not wholly invalid then can the state also continue to hold their bodies until they sue through some body restitution law -- habeas corpus? Clearly not.
        will_brown 10y ago
        Liberty and property are clearly different in practice. Say you were arrested for holding me up at gun point and robbing me of $100, you are arrested and convicted and ordered to pay me back the $100 which you did. On appeal the conviction is overturned because of some technicality. even though you actually did rob me, there is no question your liberty will be restored (set free), but the question is should property be lumped right into that fold and I be ordered to give you back the $100? 7-1 the Justice's believe a law requiring you to prove you were innocent in order to get the money is unconstitutional. Thomas the lone dissent thinks once you give me the $100 that $100 is no longer yours so due process doesn't apply and the state was free to pass their own law to provide a process for these instances.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
will_brown 10y ago
The legal argument would be as follows: 1. The Defendant was charged with a crime and received his Constitutional due process (fair trial; lawyer; confront witnesses; remain silent; etc...) 2. Defendant was convicted and pursuant to that ordered to pay: court costs, fees and restitution (make the victims whole). A. This is where it starts to get a little tricky...what if the defendant pays, but the conviction is later overturned? 3. The situation in A is accounted for through the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically, the Exoneration Act. In short, the Act lays our the procedure for all refunds pursuant to A above. 4. Essentially it is this law/procedure that is being challenged for Constitutionality by the Defendants. 5. The majority of Justice's opined that upon the overturn of the conviction the defendant's are automatically entitled to their refund as a matter of law. 6. (5) above is what Thomas seems to take issue with: 1.) Colorado law doesn't provide for automatic return of funds upon overturning a conviction, in fact the law in question says the opposite, and 2.) The Colorado law doesn't violate due process (this is both an interesting and clever legal argument he lays out, see below) Thomas' due process argument: Constitutional due process only applies when their is a Governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property. Here the defendant's received due process when their property was originally deprived. At that point moving forward, under the law, the Defendant lost his property rights and there is no State law that restores those property rights upon overturning the underlying conviction. What is really dramatic about Thomas' dissent, is that since the defendant has no property rights, the defendant isn't even entitled to any due process to reclaim the funds. In other words he believes the Colorado Exoneration Act is not only Constitutional but it goes above and beyond any legal requirements whereas the Defendant's don't even have a Constitutional Right to a process to reclaim property they lost rights - basically the Defendant's already have a due process and legally they aren't even entitled to that.
- drostie 10y ago
  To be a bit playful, there is a sort of "Magic: the Gathering" version of this dissent, if it helps people. So a Conviction is basically a type of enchantment which says you have 3 fewer life points and trouble getting a job. Now someone managed to cast Reverse Conviction, which exiles one conviction -- it's not even in the graveyard, as much as legally possible it's like it never happened, with the only exception being double-jeopardy laws etc. And the question is whether you get those life points back. According to the majority opinion, having your life points converted into tokens on the State Government card was part of the ongoing enchantment, and so this ended when the enchantment ended: they should be converted back. According to Clarence Thomas, it was an instant effect that happened when the enchantment was cast, and the ongoing effects were the other parts of the enchantment. So when it was cast, that was the time when you were "deprived" of your life points; it's not an "ongoing deprivation" but a single event which happened in time. You don't get them back unless another card in play says you do. (A more full analogy would also include the fact that there is this Exoneration Act card which says "(3) Take a conviction token from the State Government and gain a life point. You may not do this if there is an enchantment which creates these tokens either on you or in the graveyard," and a house rule called Due Process which says that you cannot be deprived of life points without some card in the field of play saying so. )

Can someone with legal experience interpret the dissent? I don't really understand the distinction he's making between "substantive entitlements" and "procedural due process".

otterley 10y ago

Very briefly: * Procedural law is the body of law around how a case is heard and handled: how to petition a court, how cases are adjudicated, jurisdiction (i.e. does the Court have the authority to handle this case), etc. * Substantive law is basically everything else. Rights, remedies, criminal law, civil law, administrative law, etc.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

What I'm gathering at a really brief read of it (and without legal experience), is that Thomas is suggesting that if the money collected is no longer the individual's property, there's no Constitutional or legal obligation for the government to return it. So, like, evidence collected generally remains property of the owner, and people can recollect it, but if fines or fees are paid or assets are seized, it assigns the property rights of something to the state, it's no longer the individual's property and hence they have no right to get it back... even if they were found innocent later of a court case. EDIT: cookiecaper's read on it is probably better than mine, go read that.

will_brown 10y ago
Not sure why you were down voted, that is basically the entire second part of Thomas' legal dissent. 1. Colorado law doesn't provide for an automatic refund when convictions are overturned, rather Colorado law provides a process and the defendant's didn't attempt to use the process (Therefore, no Constitutional violation in application of this law); 2. The Defendants here already lost their property rights, and so the Due Process Clause of the Constitution does not apply (Colorado doesn't need to provide any process to refund, so we don't need to even look at the Colorado Law to determine if the process is Unconstitutional).
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  I try not to read too much into why I got a downvote anymore. Maybe it's because people disagree with Thomas' opinion. Maybe it's because they think I read it poorly or said something technically incorrect (which is likely). For all I know, they saw an earlier comment of mine, disagreed, but couldn't downvote it and came and downvoted my most recent comment instead. Who knows, it happens. People on the Internet are baffling.
- pishpash 10y ago
  Well, 1 is pendant on 2. If 2 is invalid then 1 is also irrelevant. It is really hard to argue that the defendants have lost their property rights or that a contractually legal property transfer occurred. It was "seized" after all.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    If the seizure was legally conducted based on the law, then ownership of the property in question arguably has been transferred. Obviously asset seizure in itself is not illegal. And so Thomas' argument hinges on the concept that since it's no longer their property, they have no Constitutional rights regarding it's return. I don't think it's a wholly invalid point, even if the result is terrible. And obviously the rest of the court decided to lean in favor of the common man, which I think is a general good.
    - pishpash 10y ago
      Well, the state has to release their bodies upon the overturning of their conviction. If the point is not wholly invalid then can the state also continue to hold their bodies until they sue through some body restitution law -- habeas corpus? Clearly not.
      - will_brown 10y ago
        Liberty and property are clearly different in practice. Say you were arrested for holding me up at gun point and robbing me of $100, you are arrested and convicted and ordered to pay me back the $100 which you did. On appeal the conviction is overturned because of some technicality. even though you actually did rob me, there is no question your liberty will be restored (set free), but the question is should property be lumped right into that fold and I be ordered to give you back the $100? 7-1 the Justice's believe a law requiring you to prove you were innocent in order to get the money is unconstitutional. Thomas the lone dissent thinks once you give me the $100 that $100 is no longer yours so due process doesn't apply and the state was free to pass their own law to provide a process for these instances.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

will_brown 10y ago

The legal argument would be as follows: 1. The Defendant was charged with a crime and received his Constitutional due process (fair trial; lawyer; confront witnesses; remain silent; etc...) 2. Defendant was convicted and pursuant to that ordered to pay: court costs, fees and restitution (make the victims whole). A. This is where it starts to get a little tricky...what if the defendant pays, but the conviction is later overturned? 3. The situation in A is accounted for through the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically, the Exoneration Act. In short, the Act lays our the procedure for all refunds pursuant to A above. 4. Essentially it is this law/procedure that is being challenged for Constitutionality by the Defendants. 5. The majority of Justice's opined that upon the overturn of the conviction the defendant's are automatically entitled to their refund as a matter of law. 6. (5) above is what Thomas seems to take issue with: 1.) Colorado law doesn't provide for automatic return of funds upon overturning a conviction, in fact the law in question says the opposite, and 2.) The Colorado law doesn't violate due process (this is both an interesting and clever legal argument he lays out, see below) Thomas' due process argument: Constitutional due process only applies when their is a Governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property. Here the defendant's received due process when their property was originally deprived. At that point moving forward, under the law, the Defendant lost his property rights and there is no State law that restores those property rights upon overturning the underlying conviction. What is really dramatic about Thomas' dissent, is that since the defendant has no property rights, the defendant isn't even entitled to any due process to reclaim the funds. In other words he believes the Colorado Exoneration Act is not only Constitutional but it goes above and beyond any legal requirements whereas the Defendant's don't even have a Constitutional Right to a process to reclaim property they lost rights - basically the Defendant's already have a due process and legally they aren't even entitled to that.

drostie 10y ago
To be a bit playful, there is a sort of "Magic: the Gathering" version of this dissent, if it helps people. So a Conviction is basically a type of enchantment which says you have 3 fewer life points and trouble getting a job. Now someone managed to cast Reverse Conviction, which exiles one conviction -- it's not even in the graveyard, as much as legally possible it's like it never happened, with the only exception being double-jeopardy laws etc. And the question is whether you get those life points back. According to the majority opinion, having your life points converted into tokens on the State Government card was part of the ongoing enchantment, and so this ended when the enchantment ended: they should be converted back. According to Clarence Thomas, it was an instant effect that happened when the enchantment was cast, and the ongoing effects were the other parts of the enchantment. So when it was cast, that was the time when you were "deprived" of your life points; it's not an "ongoing deprivation" but a single event which happened in time. You don't get them back unless another card in play says you do. (A more full analogy would also include the fact that there is this Exoneration Act card which says "(3) Take a conviction token from the State Government and gain a life point. You may not do this if there is an enchantment which creates these tokens either on you or in the graveyard," and a house rule called Due Process which says that you cannot be deprived of life points without some card in the field of play saying so. )