In all American states, a defendant convicted at first instance has to pay costs, fees and restitutions (sometimes to victims). But they get their money back if they get acquitted in second instance - less in Colorado. In this state, the defendant acquitted by a court of appeal must prove in court his "real innocence in relation to the crime for which he was convicted", when requesting reimbursement. It's the "Law of the Foolish People" - a law that stopped counting on Wednesday (4/4), by decision of the US Supreme Court.
The country's legal community has made the decision. But lawyers and more journalists (who are required to read court rulings) further celebrated the drafting of the 7-1 vote by Ruth Ginsburg. She used a technique of structuring journalistic text, called the mixed pyramid: the first paragraph brings the most important information of the text; From the second, the story unfolds in chronological order.
The technique has pleased everyone because it is usually necessary to read many pages of a vow, always too long, to understand what the court is examining and what conclusion it has reached. In the vote of Justice Ruth Ginsburg, the reader can infer a good idea about the issue before the court, the case, the relevant law and the decision when reading only the first paragraph (in journalism, the lead).
So the best way to tell this story of Colorado law that reverses the burden of proof and denies the presumption of innocence is to follow (even briefly) the vote, as it was written. The whole story and decision fit into just five pages. In another five pages the vote discusses the law and the jurisprudence, as well as the allegations of the parties. The 11th page was only used for the final decision, in three lines. Pure papaya with sugar for those who have to read judicial decisions.
Before the vote itself, the document brings a text of less than a page and a half, called in the USA of "Syllabus", which is a summary of the judicial decision - and that is also enough to understand the vote. The first paragraph of the vote itself, which begins with the question to be decided by the court, says:
"When a criminal conviction is overturned by an appeals court and a new trial is not ordered, is the state required to reimburse the defendant's fees, costs and refunds for the conviction? Our answer is yes. In the absence of conviction for a crime, the person is presumed innocent. Under Colorado law before the court, however, the state withholds convictions, unless - and until - the dominant defendant institutes a separate civil action and proves his innocence with clear and convincing evidence. Such a scheme, in our view, violates the guarantees of due process contemplated in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution]. "
From the second paragraph onwards, the vote goes into the history of two cases that were put together. The story explains the issue examined by the court (the language is simple, you do not have to edit anything, except to fit the translation, to facilitate the understanding of the average reader, although numbers of articles have been removed):
"Two cases were presented to the court. In 2006, petitioner Shannon Nelson was convicted by a jury in Colorado, based on five counts - two of crime and three counts of felony counts - of sexual and physical abuse of her four children. The criminal forum imposed a prison sentence of 20 years on perpetual and the payment of costs, fees and refunds, in the amount of US $ 8,192.50. In a new trial, the jury acquitted the defendant of all the accusations ".
"Petitioner Louis Alonzo Madden in 2005 was convicted by a jury in Colorado for attempting to be a client of a child prostituted and attempted to commit rape by force, a felony of third degree. The criminal forum imposed an indefinite jail sentence and the payment of costs, fees and refunds, in the amount of US $ 4,413.00. The Colorado Superior Court overturned one of Madden's convictions in a direct review and one post-conviction court overturned the other. The state chose not to appeal or re-trial.
"(...) In the absence of the indictment, Colorado would have no legal right to collect and withhold the petitioners' funds. With their convictions annulled, the two petitioners moved to recover the values that the state had taken from them. In the case of Shannon Nelson, the forum denied the request immediately. In Madden's case, the post-conviction court authorized the reimbursement of costs and fees but not of restitution. "
"The same Colorado court of appeal ruled both cases and found that the defendants were entitled to reimbursement for everything they paid, including restitution. The court has argued that such payments are tied to a valid conviction in the absence of which the court must return the defendant to the status quo ante. "
"The Colorado High Court overturned the two decisions. As no other law deals with reimbursements, the court concluded that the Personnel Insufficient is the exclusive process for unlawful defendants seeking reimbursement of costs, fees and refunds. "
"(...) In a dissenting vote, Minister William Hood stated that none of the petitioners has a valid conviction and therefore should be presumed to be innocent. And that due process requires some mechanism for repayment of the defendants' money. Since the Law of the Innocent requires that a petitioner prove his innocence, the law does not provide the remedy that due process requires. "
After citing this argument, the vote says that the Supreme Court agreed to try the cases. And it overturned the decisions of the Superior Court of Colorado. The court further clarified that recovery of amounts paid as costs, fees and restitutions has nothing to do with an action that the defendant may move separately against the state for compensation for the time he spent innocent in prison because of wrongdoing .
"The Colorado scheme violates due process measures because the defendant's interest in getting his funds is high, the risk of misappropriation of these funds based on the Law of the Unlawful Person is unacceptable and the state has not proved that it has a competing interest in Retain the values in question. In complying with due process, the state can impose nothing more than minimum procedures for the reimbursement of charges dependent on a conviction subsequently annulled. "
"Colorado's right to claim the money of the defendants is zero," says the vote that any layman can understand.
Comentários
Postar um comentário