4 ms·

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 wi

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 9y 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. )
- will_brown 9y ago
  Analogies are always good in law, I kind of got lost in yours but if you looked at my law text books you wouldn't find notes but pictures in my margins, likewise they may not help you but the process no doubt helped me flush out the ideas/concepts and remember the same. Even running it thru my mind I do see the practical examples of distinguishing between the restoration of property and liberty when they have been deprived based on conviction and later overturned. In fact I am sure I could provide examples where even people on here might agree the property should not be returned to the defendant after the overturned conviction. A lot of those examples would be where the defendant is actually guilty of the crime, but the conviction is over turned and the victim is forced to return restitution on top of seeing the defendant set free. Nevertheless, in theory victims have another remedy in civil court at a lower standard than the beyond reasonable doubt of criminal court, but I could see that being traumatic to the victim in a lot of instance and likely so let down by the system they would never pursue it or if they did and won they may never be able to collect again. It is very tricky no matter what the law is I'll find a set of facts that when applied results in an unjust outcome.

drostie 9y 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. )

will_brown 9y ago
Analogies are always good in law, I kind of got lost in yours but if you looked at my law text books you wouldn't find notes but pictures in my margins, likewise they may not help you but the process no doubt helped me flush out the ideas/concepts and remember the same. Even running it thru my mind I do see the practical examples of distinguishing between the restoration of property and liberty when they have been deprived based on conviction and later overturned. In fact I am sure I could provide examples where even people on here might agree the property should not be returned to the defendant after the overturned conviction. A lot of those examples would be where the defendant is actually guilty of the crime, but the conviction is over turned and the victim is forced to return restitution on top of seeing the defendant set free. Nevertheless, in theory victims have another remedy in civil court at a lower standard than the beyond reasonable doubt of criminal court, but I could see that being traumatic to the victim in a lot of instance and likely so let down by the system they would never pursue it or if they did and won they may never be able to collect again. It is very tricky no matter what the law is I'll find a set of facts that when applied results in an unjust outcome.