Hello wingers:

I’ve been hearing about how upset you are regarding those corrupt criminal lawyers out there who, single-handedly, are responsible for all the woes of society. Cheer up, dudes - things ain’t so bad. Here’s one you’re going to love.

An Ohio inmate named Bowles, challenged his conviction in federal district court and lost. The judge told Mr. Bowles that he had until Feb. 27 to appeal. He filed the appeal on Feb. 26, and was ready to argue why he was wrongly convicted. But it turned out the district court judge made a mistake. The appeal should have been filed by Feb. 24.

The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, in a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, that Mr. Bowles was out of luck, and his appeal was invalid. So much for heeding a federal judge.

The decision was wrong for many reasons. The Supreme Court has made clear in its past rulings that deadlines like this are not make-or-break. The court recognized in the past that if there were “unique circumstances” that accounted for the delay, appeals could still be heard. Clearly, following an order from a federal judge is such a circumstance. This was the last stop for Bowles. He’s done. He's toast. He'll die in the slam.

The four dissenters distilled this case perfectly when they said, “it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way.”

I’ll betcha you guys think loopholes that work AGAINST a convict are just fine, thank you very much.

excon

PS> My question contains some verbiage from the NY Times.

Hello wingers:

I’ve been hearing about how upset you are regarding those corrupt criminal lawyers out there who, single-handedly, are responsible for all the woes of society. Cheer up, dudes - things ain’t so bad. Here’s one you’re gonna love.

An Ohio inmate named Bowles, challenged his conviction in federal district court and lost. The judge told Mr. Bowles that he had until Feb. 27 to appeal. He filed the appeal on Feb. 26, and was ready to argue why he was wrongly convicted. But it turned out the district court judge made a mistake. The appeal should have been filed by Feb. 24.

The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, in a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, that Mr. Bowles was out of luck, and his appeal was invalid. So much for heeding a federal judge.

The decision was wrong for many reasons. The Supreme Court has made clear in its past rulings that deadlines like this are not make-or-break. The court recognized in the past that if there were “unique circumstances” that accounted for the delay, appeals could still be heard. Clearly, following an order from a federal judge is such a circumstance. This was the last stop for Bowles. He’s done. He's toast. He'll die in the slam.

The four dissenters distilled this case perfectly when they said, “it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way.”

I’ll betcha you guys think loopholes that work AGAINST a convict are just fine, thank you very much.

excon

PS> My question contains some verbiage from the NY Times.
When I expanded the post last week to include the black robed oligarchy I was called a scary dude.

I will have to think some more before I comment on the merit of overturning the 'unique circumstances' doctrine inherent in Thomas' decision. SCOTUS has been neither clear nor consistent in shaping the parameters of the doctrine.If nothing else this decision clarifies it. But I do not think on appearance this decision is just because 'unique circumstances' has been employed in the past.

OYEZ - Bowles v. Russell (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_5306/)

Facts of the Case

Keith Bowles was convicted of murder. He filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal District Court, and was denied. Bowles did not receive timely notice of the District Court's ruling, so he missed the deadline for appeal. He filed a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) to reopen the appeal period. The District Court granted Bowles's motion, and gave him until February 27, 2004 to file his appeal. However, Rule 4(a)(6) allows only a 14-day extension of the appeal period, which would put the deadline on February 24, 2004. Bowles filed his appeal on February 26 - on time according to the court's deadline, but untimely according to Rule 4(a)(6).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at first declined to dismiss Bowles's appeal. Later, on its own motion, the Sixth Circuit "correct[ed] [its] error" and dismissed the appeal, saying Rule 4(a)(6) "is not susceptible to extension through mistake, courtesy, or grace."

Question

May a federal Court of Appeals, acting on its own, dismiss an appeal as too late under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) when the appeal is filed after the 14-day extension specified in the Rule but before the deadline established by the District Court?

The way I read it so far is that Bowles depended on the word of the District Court. If SCOTUS was going to slap anyone down it should've been the district court judge. However ;his lawyer should've understood the rules in FRAP 4(a)(6) and submitted the appeal ahead of the absolute deadline. Why did he wait until the absolute last minute ? I do not think Bowles was served well by his lawyer in this case either .

So in a short week we have seen clear examples of rogue DAs ,out of control or sloppy judicial work ,and inept representation by defense lawyers . Sort of proves DKs point doesn't it ?

No, it's not all right. I think the guy got screwed by a bad attorney and a judge who effed up.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has to uphold the law as written. The question they had to decide was "whether the Court of Appealshad jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed after the statutory period but within the period allowed by the District Court's order." Thomas was actually right in his decision... he said that Congress determined the jurisdictions of the lower courts, and that FRAP 4(a)(6) is a determinor of the Sixth Circuit Court's jurisdiction, and the appeal came outside that jurisdictional period. Therefore, the Supreme court HAD to uphold the 6CCs decision to deny the appeal. The 6CC acted within the rules when it denied the appeal. SOCTUS could only overturn the 6CC's decision if they found that the 6CC was in error. No such error exists. Thomas noted that if this were merely a question of procedure by the 6CC rather than actual federal law, the decision would have been for the 6CC to hear the appeal. But since it was a Federal Law, the SCOTUS was unable to rule in favor of Bowels.

Now... can Congress call for the 6CC to hear the case anyway? Probably. Since Congress determines jurisdictions of the lower courts, they can decide that the 6CC should grant an extension to Bowels based on extenuating circumstances. And maybe that is the way it should go.

Or perhaps a different question needs to be asked of the Supreme Court... one that takes the ORIGINAL ERROR of the judge into account... Something that asks "Is a decision by a District Court valid, if part of that decision (in this case the date by which to file an appeal) was in error?" Perhaps an appeal based on the original error in which the judge gave an incorrect date, rather than the question of whether circuit court has the right to decline the appeal.

Perhaps there is enough of a basis for appeal based on poor representation by the appelate lawyer for having filed the appeal so damn late in the first place.

But whatever we might think of the outcome, and I personally think it sucks, SCOTUS actually made the correct decision in the question they had to rule upon. So it's time for Bowels to change the question.

By the way... have you read Justice Souter's dissenting opinion? Boiled down to its basic thrust, it comes down to "I don't think it's fair." He's right, it's not fair. The guy got screwed. But "it's not fair" is not a legal basis for a Supreme Court decision. The LAW is supposed to be the basis for a Supreme Court opinion. I really wish that Souter had a legal reason for his disent. I might actually have gotten behind him on this case if he did. But without a real legal basis for such an opinion, "it's not fair" just doesn't cut it.

Elliot

I thought Bush was responsible for all the woes of society. Anyway, the guy got screwed but I'm with the others, the judge screwed up but his attorney should have known the rules. Some relief would be appropriate in my opinion.

Elliot ,good points about Congress . They empower the lower and appeal courts and they can overturn the rule. Short of that it was a question of jurisdiction and the lower court had no right to change the rules of the appellate court .

You are right what you say about SCOTUS except that I think there was some merit in the minority opinion in the case about the 'unique circumstances 'doctrine.There is precedence that they can fall back on in reversing the decision but who is to say that stare decisis always applies ? The majority opinion makes it clear that they don't think so . But was justice served ?

Elliot ,good points about Congress . They empower the lower and appeal courts and they can overturn the rule.

Just to clarify . What I am referring to is not overturning the Bowles decision ;but the inflexibility of FRAP 4. Congress should probably look into the statute and allow for 'unique circumstances'.Either that or make it very clear to District Judges that they are to be inflexible regarding the rules. Evidently the judge thought that a short extension was justified and had been given that discretion in the past .