What is Digg?88 Comments
- lordtyros, on 10/11/2007, -3/+44Appeal. Missing word is appeal.
That is completely ***** up. Guy has 15 years to Life to think about how much he loves the Supreme Court. - futureb, on 10/11/2007, -4/+31@reeder
it's not black people, it's disdain for criminal defendants in general. they pass it off as "tough on the rules" but in reality they could care less about justice for the individual. - hokie47, on 10/11/2007, -0/+24If I told a client he or she had 14 days to change his or her mind but in reality it was only 10, I would still have to honor what I said.
- enicholas, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25Similar ***** happened to me, albeit on a much smaller scale. I got a ***** speeding ticket in a different state -- it was 3AM, the highway was wide, flat, and completely deserted, and the cop was camping literally TEN FEET from the sign increasing the speed limit to the point where I wouldn't have been speeding. Since I was from out of state and wouldn't be there during my court date, the cop makes a point of telling me that all I have to do is pay the fine and I don't have to show up in court. He also checks the little box on the ticket which indicates this.
I go back to my state and promptly mail in my fine. Months later -- two days AFTER MY COURT DATE -- I receive my check back along with a notice telling me that I can't simply pay off this fine and will have to show up in court on my appointed date. Which, of course, would require me to travel three thousand miles in space and two days backwards in time. A day or two later I receive a letter informing me that, for failure to appear in court, a warrant for my arrest had been issued.
I exchanged a few letters with the court explaining the situation, that the cop had specifically told me I could simply mail in my fine and that the ticket also indicated this. Given what the cop had told me, what the ticket indicated, and the fact that I was three thousand miles away, surely we could sort this out by mail. They politely explained back that the fact that a police officer had been ignorant of the law was no excuse for me to be ignorant of the law, and reminded me that there was an outstanding warrant for my arrest.
I had to hire a lawyer to sort the matter out, and in the end I was out over six hundred dollars -- over a stupid speeding ticket that shouldn't have been issued in the first place. ***** you, North Carolina.
There, I feel better now. - strafefire, on 10/11/2007, -5/+27Wow...
We don't know the what happened during the trial for him to have been found guilty of murder. So innocent or guilty, he still deserved to have an appeal.
What the appeals judge did to him was wrong...and in this case, I feel that what the supreme court did was even more screwed up... - futureb, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27actually, yes. that is exactly what congress would do.
- lnf69, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20@spectxim
you shouldn't feel bad for a murderer,
you should feel pissed for the injustice of our injustice system.
This is not about one single murderer, this is about our justice system failing, and failing by the direction of the most important components of the system, Supreme Court Judges. - cfpresley, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26Not that I have any sympathy for a murderer, but this will be Bush's real legacy, a conservative dominated SCoTUS. The Appeals judge erred by misquoting the deadline, it should be the justice system that takes care of the problem, not push it back to congress. What is congress going to do anyway, pass a law that says if a judge tells you the wrong date, then you can still appeal?
- futureb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19the point here is: what is to prevent a judge from doing this on purpose?
"you have 16 days...hehe, let's see you file that appeal jackass" - subliminalurge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Next thing on this guy's agenda needs to be filing a malpractice lawsuit.
His attorney should have been aware of the actual deadline and filed the appeal on time. - ripple123, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16So does this allow judges to basically lie to defendants?
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13You're right..we should be hard.
Let's strip the legal protections from people.
You know...if you don't commit murder but someone says you did, you should lose all legal protections immediately and go to prison.
rtjr - You killed Kennedy. By my accusal and your idea of being "hard" on crime, you're immediately treated as a murderer and have no rights... Have a nice day - thejokell, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10He didn't wait until the last minute - the attorney filed a day before the judge told him he needed to. Last minute would have been filing on the 18th day.
This decision is absolutely ridiculous. If a judge tells you something and you follow the instructions, how can you be punished for that? - Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9This wasn't even a case of a bad lawyer, necessarily, unless you're counting the judge. And yes, rich people can afford better judges.
- Jade10145, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7"Maybe all of you sympathetic murder lovers should take a good look at what happens around the world. In most 3rd world countries killers never even make it to jail, let alone court, and a chance for appeal is pretty difficult once you have been beheaded."
@Rtjr
Well, we do not live in a third world country, second, the law gives this person the right to file for an appeal. Third whether you like it or not, even convicted criminals have rights (i.e. the right to file an appeal).
This "special circumstances" doctrine was made for exact cases like this. The judge made a mistake, I would call that a special circumstance, especially when something as important as incarceration for life comes into play. The explanation by the Supreme Court that is something for congress to handle makes absolute no sense. You are the Supreme Court, its is your duty to judge, in fact the doctrine gives you that power in this specific case.
On a side note, the lawyer of the defendant probably should of already known that it was 14 days, stupid ***** lawyer. - qwickone, on 10/11/2007, -12/+18@mtwolf
you have heard of checks and balances right? That's why the Supreme Court can over-rule the laws that Congress passes and they can make up their own rules when Congress has failed to create a necessary rule. - mtwolf, on 10/11/2007, -16/+22[Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court now regarded the doctrine as illegitimate. “If rigorous rules like the one applied today are thought to be inequitable,” Justice Thomas added, the remedy should come from Congress.]
Am I the only one that read the article? What the court is trying to say is that they will no longer legislate from the bench. I think this is a win for America on principle. Let Congress make the laws. If you really care about this issue, write your congressman to make a law for circumstances like this. - Double0Doug, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7This is truly an interesting situation. On one hand there is personal responsibility, on the other hand there is personal responsibility.
The attorney and defendant should have the personal responsibility for filing the appeal on time. The Judge should have the personal responsibility to accept that he made a mistake and work with it.
Which one takes precedence? It is a pretty slippery slope when the defendant has to start double checking the facts as ordered by the judge. The court room is the judge’s kingdom. If the judge can dictate what is appropriate for me to wear in his court room, should I really second guess him on anything he says.
I do have to agree with the Supreme Court decision that this doctrine should be put into law by congress and not by the court system. However that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a little judicial discretion allowed.
The judge should have said, “Oops I screwed up; let’s accept the appeal late in this instance”. Let’s put a different spin on it. Let’s say the judge was tired of this particular criminal and wanted to screw him out of his final appeal. Just give him the wrong date and voila no appeal no repercussions for the judge. Not saying that is what happened by any means, but the judge shouldn’t be able to hid behind the old “rules is rules” excuse. It should be known that the judge could have made an allowance for this and if he chooses not to, he is just being an ass and open to further investigation. - HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@rtjr
Idiots like you may not believe in due process, but that process is what prevents tyranny. - Phrag, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8I think we should give them 18 days to come up with an essay on why they should be allowed to remain Supreme Court Judges. Then we can reject them all because they missed the secret deadline that was three days before the day they finish.
- spectxim, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7@strykar;
The Judges know the law; it's just at that level; they think they are above it. - rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6The incompetent judge that gave the erroneous instruction should be disbarred.
- billyfalconer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11So wealthy people can afford better lawyers, who will know niceties of the law better than the poorer people who get less and poorer quality representation. Not unlike the neocons being able to dodge the draft, while the poorer cannonfodder couldn't, and those same neocons now send off the peasants to die for them in Bush's folly. This country's going to become as stratified and corrupt as Mexico.
- Jade10145, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5On another note, it seems that some on this board are stating that this man had been convicted by a jury, that should be it, this man should be sent to jail. Others are saying that appeals are costly and thats why they should not be done and this man should be sent to jail, after all he was convicted. But what these people are not realizing is that this man is fighting for his right to file an appeal, not for the actual appeal to be approved...
When we get to the point of the appeal being accepted then we can argue over whether the man should be given an appeal.. - HyperionZero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@rtjr
Yeah! Let's just line them up against the wall and shoot them, then push their bodies into mass graves! They've been found guilty once, "presumably" by a jury of their peers; they've been put through the infallible local judicial system, what else do they want? Justice?
Better yet, let's condemn other countries for their brutality and injustice and then condone it for our own purposes. Kant would ***** a brick right about now. - SocialPoison, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@qwickone
*bbzzzrrrttt*
wrong... nice try though.
In the checks and balances system, it's the Justice department's job to _interpret_ the laws handed down by Congress. The only time a judge can overturn a law is when it's deemed unconstitutional or in conflict with another law. They can't just ignore laws Congress comes up with or make up their own rules whenever they want. In fact, the Justice Department CAN'T make up their own rules (laws). That's Congress's job. If something like this comes up then we need to take it back to Congress and get them to take another look at the law. If it's found that this guy should have gotten an appeal, then he can retroactively call upon the new legislation.
Now... whether or not the judge should have interpretted that regulation a little differently is certainly up for some debate. - Osjpr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6"1. The man's lawyer should be familiar with the statute as well as the judge."
Irrelevent
"2. The man can file another appeal."
Irrelevent
"3. The attention is being diverted from the larger issue-does his appeal have merit? We do not know."
Irrelevent
"4. Mistakes happen, it is just it takes a longer time to reverse mistakes like this with the judicial process."
Irrelevent
"5. The man was convicted by a jury, so perhaps we should withhold our sympathy until we know if he is innocent. It was a murder after all."
Irrelevent
"6. And you have to wonder, is he going to use this denial to generate PR and skirt the issue of his true innocence? Perhaps his appeal is based on a technicality and not on facts supporting his innocence.""
Idiot - HyperionZero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6It's funny how in an infinite spectrum of circumstance and possibilities, it always seems to be broken down into black and white. Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas against the world; for better or for worse.
- Zuggy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I'm filing this under "That ain't right"
Granted the attorney shouldn't have waited until the last minute to file the appeal, but the Supreme Court shouldn't deny a man his right to an appeal because the judge presiding over his case made an error on how many days the defendant had to file for an appeal - temsi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@qwickone
Wait, so if the SCOTUS can overrule congress, and then make their own rules if congress hasn't, doesn't that in effect make them dictators, completely doing away with the checks and balances? Sorry, that's not exactly how it's supposed to work.
SCOTUS CANNOT "make new rules", or in essence make law from the bench, any more than your local federal judge can (you've probably heard the term "activist judge" thrown about by _____ (insert talk-radio or cable tv blowhard here) ___.
SCOTUS can only examine and then if needed declare unconstitutional existing laws, they cannot create new ones.
However, their decisions in certain cases can be used as legal precedence which can often be mistaken for "new rules", as in the case of Roe v. Wade for example, where SCOTUS said that the rule was always there (in the constitution), and that laws to the contrary were therefore invalid. Many tend to people think R v W is a law. It isn't, and the decision wasn't SCOTUS "making new rules", it was SCOTUS upholding the constitution when existing laws violated it. But I can see how that might be interpreted incorrectly..
IANAL but that's what I think. - luther70, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I just don't get why the justices make their decisions along party lines. They have life time appointments there are no reason why they should fall into two camps.
- faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Is it so hard to make sure your title makes sense before submitting the article?!?
- itsameericle, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Here's the problem. No one wants to acknowledge the gray area here, in accepting and adapting to (easily done, just let him file) this human mistake, because then it would be implicit acceptance that its ok to bend the laws. Guess what? Life isn't black and white.
These things do happen (and no it won't be an epidemic if we leave it the way it was, stop panicking) and
SOMEONE has to step up and provide simple judgment on the laws we have...as in judges...
These judges are ruling that its not their responsibility because then (essentially) all hell would break lose in bending laws...Not the case. Do your job. Simple. - InsaneGeek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@qwickone
I have heard of checks and balances, but apparently you missed the conversation as to what it means. The judicial system does not have the authority to as you said "make up their own rules", they absolutely do *not* have that power. The power they do have is to strike down a rule, which leaves it in whatever state the action would be without the rule. That is most definitely not the same as what you are saying they have the power to do, which is a power reserved for the legislative branch (making up rules) of the government not for the judicial branch. - Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3We have a mass of unelected unaccountable power hungry officials in the executive branch that can make the equivalent of laws by writing a memo and sticking it in a drawer. Any agency has the power to write a regulation, and write an interpretation of how that regulation is to be played out. Those regulations have the power of law, and they never go through Congress.
- gboone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's interesting that the justice system is based on the motto of innocent until proven guilty yet this article and many of the comments about feeling bad for murderers assume just the opposite. I'm willing to bet that most of you haven't read the original case, haven't seen the evidence, didn't read the appeal decisions and, in fact, haven't read anything about this case until right now. I can only hope that one day the justice system will return to an innocent until proven guilty base, then maybe the American public will too.
- andyd273, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Why did he wait so long to appeal??
If it were me I would have had the appeal in the mail the next day. I sure wouldn't want to stay in there any longer than I had too, and its not like you have anything else to do in there. - spectxim, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@Inf
Oh I agree with you entirelly on why to be pissed at this. It's not difficult to be corrupt beyond belief when you are considered absolute in what we consider the 'controling' force in our nation. - Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It would seem that the ruling is saying that Judges are not accountable for the legal advice, in this case the due date, that they dispense in court.
- Veretax, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There is another solution, if this judge broke procedure or miscarried his duties, then he should be Impeached and removed from office. That's the check and balance that should happen.
- mkoby, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Ignorance of the law is not excuse for breaking it. Two things are wrong here:
1) The judge that told the guy he could do within 18 days. Whether it was on purpose or an accident, it was wrong to do
2) The guy's lawyer should have known that the law states 14 days and filed accordingly
In my opinion, this guy is stuck due to his lawyer's stupidity and not by the judge's error. However, because his lawyer SHOULD have known 14 days was the maximum time allowed, that the Supreme Court is justified in their ruling in turning the appeal down. That probably makes me unpopular on Digg, but what does that really matter.
Point is, we have laws, they are in place to handle this kind of situation. Lawyers are trained to know the law. Judges are humans too and they make mistakes. This guys lawyer screwed up in a big way and as someone pointed out should be sued for malpractice. Since our court allows for unlimited appeals (much to my disdain), this guy can get another lawyer and file another appeal. - neffy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@qwickone
You just used "checks and balances" to support an argument of the judiciary branch making up its "own rules". You lose the internet. - TheSwashbuckler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Can we impeach Roberts and Alito for lying to Congress about stare decisis?
- bob_the_alien, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"This country's going to become as stratified and corrupt as Mexico. "'
Going, to, I think you should be looking around, our government has bee so corrupt for years now. And which each passing year it just becomes more so, only thing is, The United States government tend to hide their corruption better, well at least somewhat. - schwit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2This is a great ruling. The court is saying that the judiciary is there to interpret the law, not to make new law. If the law is constitutional but unfair (subjective interpretation) then it's up to the legislative branch to fix it.
Legislatures(state, federal, local) should be the only one's making and modifying laws, rules, regulations, etc for the rest of us. We have too many unelected unaccountable power hungry officials to allow just anybody to make laws affecting all of us. - mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1this will be fun when all those missing FBI spying audits get to the Supreme court... what's good for the goose...
on the other hand, it's not just a judges order, things like appeal dates come on standard court paperwork dated and printed by computer and vetted thru a clerk. Somebody seriously screwed up the computer program generating the documents as well as the clerks missing errors... that's what extenuating curcumstances are all about. The Appeal was still 1 day early by the date given in the paperwork signed by the judge presiding... to not allow it is petty and miscarriage of justice. - schwit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Exactly. The Supreme Court is saying enough with judicial activism. The courts have also recently said the overzealous bureaucrats overstepped their authority when it comes to TV obscenity rules, the broadcast flag, non-combatants and EPA rules.
This needs to happen more often with the unelected going to jail for exceeding their authority. - TheAkolyte, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3You're a bafoon. I hate it when people compare us to third world countries. So some country is barbaric in their punishment of criminals. Are you suggesting that we should give up our rights and freedoms because some schmuck in a mustache likes to kill people on the other side of the world? When people like you piss all over our justice system, everyone becomes a victim.
- maxtangent, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Any chance the guy can sue the judge?
- Poindexter, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Everyone of you that voted for Bush either once or twice is to blame. You let him appoint those supreme court judges! Now you can't find anyone that voted for Bush. But there's a bunch of you out there, ashamed of your decision.
-
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is