Victory! Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Steal Money From The Innocent

Well here is some good news for those who have been convicted of a crime and later exonerated (found to not be guilty).. Can you imagine being accused of a crime and then convicted even though you are totally innocent... Let us say later there is DNA evidence that says you were not the one who did the crime.. Since you were found guilty in the first place you were required to pay all court cost and anything else they can stick you with.. Later after the DNA says it was not you and you are released you request your money to be returned... In the past you were SOL but now with this Supreme court ruling whatever the courts charged you on your bill should be returned..

Colorado refused, even after the plaintiffs won in a state-level appellate court. The state, instead, insisted that if they wanted their money back, they’d have to file a claim under the Exoneration Act, forcing the defendants to once again prove their innocence to retrieve their funds. The plaintiffs appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who sided with the citizens in a 7-1 ruling, declaring Colorado’s law unconstitutional.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for the court declaring “the Exoneration Act’s scheme does not comport with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.”

Ginsburg wrote that Nelson and Madden are “entitled to be presumed innocent” and “should not be saddled with any proof burden” to reclaim what is already theirs. In other words, they shouldn’t have to demonstrate they’re not criminals after the court has already made such a determination.

www.activistpost.com...

Posted by Flatbush a few days ago here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was a little surprised it didn't seem to get much attention, though I suspect that was due to the forum he put it in.

a reply to: 727Sky

now if they would do something about asset forfeiture, you know when they pull you over, search your car, don't find any drugs but find a lot of cash, and then keep it.

a reply to: 727Sky

Wow, a win for the little people!
I didn't read as I am in a rush, but I wonder who voted the other way? Seems simple to me which way to vote.

Today it's too easy to get prosecuted, and then if you don't have a good lawyer or enough money to get one, you are screwed.

To be honest, I think you should almost get more back for losing time, wages etc.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I've always thought that was the most screwed up thing I've ever heard. That's like finding a gun in your car and automatically convicting you of murder.

a reply to: DAVID64

yes it is, it's total bs. another thing i think is total bs is the cap that states have on settlements that they give people that are wrongfully convicted, who are later exonerated.

Lets not forget planted evidence, false charges, quick and speedy trial by jury of peers, right to face ones accusers.

The justice system in the states is so broke, another law isn't going to 'fix' it.

If cops dislike your attitude, plant a baggy, impound your car, detain you for months in jail. You get beat up, raped, almost killed, in fear of your life the whole time, then finally a court date, released, charges dropped, "Have a nice day".

Don't argue with a cop ever again...

Whats that all worth?

According to this article, Clarence Thomas was the one dissenter.

a reply to: 727Sky

The plaintiffs appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who sided with the citizens in a 7-1 ruling, declaring Colorado’s law unconstitutional. 

Such a long road to common sense.

a reply to: 727Sky

Sounds fair to me. I'm surprised this had to go all the way to the Supreme Court! A person is convicted of a crime they didn't commit, yet when they're found not guilty through DNA evidence the government says too bad we keep all court costs and fines. Not only should this person be refunded for those costs, they should be given compensation for every day their life was taken away sitting in a 9x5 cell!

If you screw the government out of money, they harass the hell out of you and garnish your wages until they're paid back. When the shoe is on the other foot, their attitude is SCREW YOU!

a reply to: intrptr

I don't know about other states, but here in wisconsin, if the "victim" doesn't appear in court- the state hires a "expert witness" to play victim so the court can win. What a farce. ..

A rare event in the US court system, here the Court delivered true justice. Yes, it is so rare to have the Court come down on the side of the individual instead of on the side of government.

What about;

- Expunging your record to show no criminal history related to this wrongly convicted crime.
- Paying you yearly wages of the amount of years you were in gaol in the field in which you were hired.
- Plus additional KPI bonuses and possibly company/business growth advancements.
- A bonus additional payout by the state in which they were wrongly convicted to cover mental anguish.

Once all the above is covered... You may start getting to close to a true apologetic, "We're sorry and we actually mean it".

Good. I'd also like to see people fairly compensated for wrongful prosecution and imprisonment. Being wrongfully convicted and sent to prison usually destroys one's life, from the years lost while in prison, the income and opportunities they could have had and earned. Time with family lost, reputation ruined.

Now we need the same ruling against the IRS.

I put those reports there to post just the legal facts of the case and to inform those who are interested.
Then if someone wants to open a thread for discussion it is fine by me.

There is so much speculation, hearsay and conjecture on the main forums, there's no point.

I have enormous access to information in many areas .......
for example , we are taking a very close look at Tenax Aerospace ( They provided the GulfStream 550 G for Comey's ill fated trip to L.A. )
Former NSA & CIA Director Mike Hayden is major player in general operations.
all of Tenax activities needs to be made public, especially the outrages contract fees and full financial disclosure.

Buck

a reply to: 727Sky

We really need to see the entire Scotus ruling to see its impact. In the Scotus case it deals solely with a person who was charged, tried and convicted only to be cleared on appeal - A criminal case.

Law Enforcement seizing cash from people for simply having it (IMO illegal as F**k) I dont think is covered by this ruling.

a reply to: 727Sky

Should be returned??????

Should is not manadtory, shall is, but that sounds about right. They always leave themselves a get out.