4 ms·

How can you possibly agree with that? If overturned convictions are still financially valid then you have no de facto right of appeal (in financial disputes).

beamatronic 10y ago
It sounds like there is really no such thing as an overturned conviction. There is no constitutional right, apparently, to being "made whole" if your "conviction" is "overturned".
- ghaff 10y ago
  >There is no constitutional right, apparently, to being "made whole" if your "conviction" is "overturned". Which in the general case is pretty clearly true. If someone is arrested and found not guilty, have their conviction overturned on appeal, etc. they're not in general entitled to payment for lost wages, legal costs, etc. It seems reasonable to consider this a different situation in that it involved a specific fine but I can at least see the counterargument that it's not.
sswaner 10y ago
I rarely agree with Thomas and certainly don't in this case. I find his rationale to be nonsensical.
lukas099 10y ago
OP didn't say they agreed with it. In fact they implied that they did not agree.
kybernetikos 10y ago
It's not so much that they are financially valid, it's whether you consider the money to have been taken by the state, and that it should compensate you for the money it took, or if your money is being held by the state, and it should return it. If you consider that it should compensate you for the money it took off you, then Colorado has a law on the books governing the compensation process, which Thomas (and the previous court - the Colorado Supreme Court) thinks you should follow. The majority opinion seems to be that not quickly returning (and it considered it as returning rather than compensating) the innocent parties property offends their right to due process.
- benchaney 10y ago
  The entire premise of appellate courts (and by extension the Supreme Court) is that if the government does something wrong it should be reversed. Ignoring this fundamental truth seems completely insane.

beamatronic 10y ago

It sounds like there is really no such thing as an overturned conviction. There is no constitutional right, apparently, to being "made whole" if your "conviction" is "overturned".

ghaff 10y ago
>There is no constitutional right, apparently, to being "made whole" if your "conviction" is "overturned". Which in the general case is pretty clearly true. If someone is arrested and found not guilty, have their conviction overturned on appeal, etc. they're not in general entitled to payment for lost wages, legal costs, etc. It seems reasonable to consider this a different situation in that it involved a specific fine but I can at least see the counterargument that it's not.

sswaner 10y ago

I rarely agree with Thomas and certainly don't in this case. I find his rationale to be nonsensical.

lukas099 10y ago

OP didn't say they agreed with it. In fact they implied that they did not agree.

kybernetikos 10y ago

It's not so much that they are financially valid, it's whether you consider the money to have been taken by the state, and that it should compensate you for the money it took, or if your money is being held by the state, and it should return it. If you consider that it should compensate you for the money it took off you, then Colorado has a law on the books governing the compensation process, which Thomas (and the previous court - the Colorado Supreme Court) thinks you should follow. The majority opinion seems to be that not quickly returning (and it considered it as returning rather than compensating) the innocent parties property offends their right to due process.

benchaney 10y ago
The entire premise of appellate courts (and by extension the Supreme Court) is that if the government does something wrong it should be reversed. Ignoring this fundamental truth seems completely insane.