AP: Supreme Court rules against wrongly imprisoned man

[Eugene]

Supreme Court rules against wrongly imprisoned man
Posted 2/21/2007 11:58 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — A deadline is a deadline is a deadline, the Supreme
Court said Wednesday in refusing to allow a man wrongly imprisoned for
more than eight years to sue the police officers who arrested him.

Andre Wallace, whose murder conviction was overturned in 2002, waited
several years too long to file his false arrest lawsuit, the court said
in a 7-2 ruling.

He had two years in which to file his civil rights lawsuit, which he began
working on during the year after his release. The issue before the court
was when the two-year clock began to run.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the correct starting
point is when a judge reviews the criminal charges against a defendant and
bounds him over for trial. In Wallace's case, this hearing occurred in 1994,
shortly after his arrest.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-21-scotus-arrest_x.htm

[xchrom]

1. the 7 who ruled against this man are all barbaric fucks.

bloated tapeworms.

[truthisfreedom]

2. And, of course, we all know rules are more important than humanity.

God forbid humanity is taken into consideration.

[China_cat]

6. The thing I'm wondering is

if the accused are made aware of this fact or is it "it doesn't matter that you didn't know you only had 2 years, time ran out and you're stuck"?

[tblue]

3. It should never be effin too late for a thing like that. This SCOTUS will burn in hell someday

at least 5 of 'em anyway.

[Hosnon]

8. Blame the legislative body that enacted the statute of limitations.

The SCOTUS should only be blamed if the law was vague and they clarified to the detriment of this individual.

[tblue]

11. Oh they have plenty of other reasons to burn in hell

[Hosnon]

12. Haha...point taken.

But perhaps Satan can strike this infraction off of his list.

[MidwestTransplant]

16. Exactly. Plus I am sure this guy was approached by an army of lawyers

upon his release who no doubt made him aware of the Statute of Limitations.

[dysfunctional press]

26. if only that could be true.

unfortunately, the ones who deserve it are the ones who realize that it doesn't exist.

[Mojorabbit]

4. This isn't following

the spirit of the law. This is a poor ruling and whoever wrote the law giving a two year deadline should be horsewhipped.

[Hosnon]

5. My opinion:

This ruling is not too bad.

If it is agreed that statutes of limitations are constitutional/valid, there can be little dispute that there would become a time when his claim would become stale.

Given that, it is then a matter of when the clock begins to tick (probably involves notice of the wrongful arrest). If Mr. Wallace knew that he had a claim at time T and the statute of limitations barred the claim at T+2 years, he should be barred from bringing the claim after T+2.

[Deep13]

7. How in the name of hell...

...can he prepare a suit for false arrest from prison when he still has a valid conviction on his record?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

9. I Was Wondering The Same Thing

He was not falsely accused while he was still in prison, so this makes no sense to me.

But then again, I'm not worthy enough to be on the Supreme Court, so what do I know?

[Eric J in MN]

28. Exactly.

It makes sense for one to first resolve the criminal matters before filing a civil lawsuit.

In the case of crime victims, they almost always wait until the criminal trial is over before deciding whether to sue.

[Double T]

10. Got to get rid of these lifetime appointments for SCOTUS justices.........

there should be NO TIME LIMIT for such a heinous act.

[Benhurst]

13. Das Homeland is turning into a particularly nasty place.

At least people won't be hating us for our freedoms.

[Judi Lynn]

15. There is an upside, AFTER all! Good one. n/t

[aquart]

18. You made me laugh on a really bad day.

[Benhurst]

19. Good!

:hi:

[poverlay]

14. Way to screw someone out of what's fair with strict constructionism. The foolish conservatives

who think this is a good idea should take a bow and celebrate another case of "They screwed themselves because they didn't specify.". Miserable assholes one and all.

[aquart]

17. Any chance they'll make his daughter do time?

[Megahurtz]

20. I call BULLSHIT to the "Statute of Limitations" Rule!

All it does is perpetuate Criminal Acts and Corruption!:mad:

I believe there should be no stupid "Statute of Limitations" on ANYTHING.
Especially because of the heinously ridiculous minimal timespan allowed.
A traumatized Victim is usually incapable of acting very quicky.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. then

get the legislature to change it.

The court can't just ignore the law as written.

[Eric J in MN]

30. They don't have to ignore the law but the majority could have interpreted

...the law more reasonably, like the dissenters, whereby first the criminal matters are resolved, and then the clock starts ticking on the civil matters.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. evidently

there wasn't much grounds to do so.

Stevens and Souter voted in the majority, too.

Yes, I think there was an injustice here, but it's not the Supreme Court's job to remedy every injustice. People should contact the Illinois State Legislature to implement a more reasonable statute of limitations.

[Eric J in MN]

35. Both the Justices appointed by a Democrat voted for the plaintiff...

..."Justice Stephen Breyer, joined in dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

[brentspeak]

21. "Wrongly imprisoned" is a bit misleading

It makes him out to be some completely innocent person. Wallace was freed from prison only due to a technicality. He admitted in court to the shooting, giving two separate accounts: 1) self-defense; 2) mutual combat.

[bettyellen]

22. it's not illegal to defend yourself, so that's wrongful imprisonment, isn't it?

[Eric J in MN]

31. He was coerced into confessing in the first place.

"slapped and kicked" and kept up until he confessed.

[Rex]

23. More worthless bullshit from people who should know better.

A deadline is a deadline. :eyes:

Fucking plz.

[happyslug]

24. Here is the Opinion

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1240.pdf

While the problem is tied in with Section 1983 (A federal Civil Rights cause of Action), the REAL problem is that most states (Like Illinois, where this man was a prisoner) has VERY limited statutes of Limitations. Since Section 1983 has NO statute of Limitation, the Federal Courts use the equivalent type of State law Statute of Limitation in the state the Action is brought in. In most States that is two years (Which do NOT run till the person is age 18). In any event Illinois statute of Limitation was two years, and thus any Section 1983 lawsuit had to use the SAME Statute of Limitation and thus this man's claim was time barred.

The Best solution to this would be for the STATE to say any Violation of False Imprisonment only starts NOT when a person is first CHARGED with a Crime, but when he is released. This is the easiest solution, but will NOT happen for most states do NOT want people to file these action and like the present state of the law.

[Zhade]

25. KandR against injustice.

NT!

[Eric J in MN]

29. The Chicago police "slapped and kicked" him and kept him

...through the night until he confessed.

[HuffleClaw]

33. WTF????

oh, that is soooooooo wrong.

[struggle4progress]

34. Court rules against death row inmate (Missed deadline)

Posted on Tue, Feb. 20, 2007

PETE YOST
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a Florida death row prisoner lost an opportunity to challenge his conviction in the federal court system because he missed a one-year filing deadline.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices sided with the state of Florida against inmate Gary Lawrence, who faces execution for murdering a man who had moved in with Lawrence's wife.

Under the federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, death row inmates have one year after a conviction becomes final in state courts to petition the federal system to review the case.

Lawrence's lawyers say they stopped the clock from running on the state's one-year time limit by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court. A majority of the court rejected that argument ...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16740888.htm