A man who spent 16 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit is angry all over again because the judge who dismissed his appeal over a procedural error is now on her way to the Supreme Court. When he was 16 years old, Jeffrey Deskovic was convicted of raping, beating and strangling a Peekskill High School classmate in a jealous fit of rage; he was finally exonerated in 2006 after DNA evidence was matched to a man serving time for another Westchester murder. But Deskovic could have been out much sooner had Sonia Sotomayor not rejected his habeas corpus petition appeal because the paperwork arrived four days late in 1997. Deskovic's lawyer blamed a clerk for providing the wrong deadline, but Sotomayor ruled that the "alleged reliance of Deskovic’s attorney on verbal misinformation from the court clerk" was his problem. Needless to say, all the liberal praise for Sotomayor rings a bit hollow for Deskovic, who tells the Times, "To hear that a judge who put procedure over innocence could be moving to a higher court is very upsetting to me."
Jeffrey Deskovic
In regards to your article: http://gothamist.com/2009/11/28/lawsuit_dirty_st_vincents_equipment.php
[more]
Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Yeah, nobody wants a judge who follows legally prescribed procedure.
While my sympathies lay with Deskovic, the person who's really at fault is either his lawyer for missing the deadline or the clerk who incorrectly informed his lawyer.
This is horrible. While I agree that it's his lawyer's fault, I find it disgusting that she would throw out the appeal on this kind of technicality. We're not talking about a civil issue, or one regarding money in a lawsuit. This is 16 years of someone's life they will never get back. That bothers me a lot.
It's the system's fault, not her own. It may be unlawful for her to decide otherwise in his case.
"YOUR PAPERS ARE NOT IN ORDER, NINE MORE YEARS FOR YOU!"
Pathetic.
She worked summers at the DMV.
Like any other judge, she will view an appeal by a convicted felon with less than enthusiastic glee. Which is why it's so important to get it right the first time around. Also, it's been remarked that circumstantial evidence cases are getting much harder to prosecute, let alone win, it's been called the "CSI factor."
he looks too white to be innocent.
This problem lays at the feet of the lawyer. The deadline for a habeas petition is very rigid and relying on the clerk's office is stupid.
In addition, sitting on an appellate court, Sotomayor was constrained to review the decision of the District Court judge that denied the petition as untimely. So, the level of discretion she could exercise was curtailed.
Oh snap, you've been hit with legalese!
After this her confirmation might be unanimous.
Blame it on the lawyer who naturally passes the buck.
Why not refile IN TIME?
He does have that Seth Rogan look
Hey, the right-wingers were all up in arms over the possibility that Ms. Sotomayor might have too much 'empathy.' Which is apparently a filthy word.
I know all about Sonia but why drag Sandra into this?
I know all about Sonia but why drag Sandra into this?
Reading the Gothamist post gives a very inaccurate picture of what happened; as usual you have to click through and read the actual news articles.
She did not rule to deny his habeus petition because the paperwork arrived too late. That statement above is simply false. A lower court made that ruling, and he appealed it. The appeals panel that she was part of then ruled that the decision by that court should stand, because it was made within the law.
Look at what actually happened, look at the actual law, and engage some common sense and no other decision could be made by an appeals court.
To do anything else, after all, would be that dreaded evil "judicial activism," wouldn't it? Her panel simply followed the law.
"Very inaccurate"? That's actually a better description of your tortured semantics. And "as usual" you misspelled habeas.
The appeal that was rejected did not arrive four days late. Your statement above implies that it did. That is very inaccurate.
Is that semantically simple enough?
The wording IS very misleading.
I agree with jayclay, what you have written does not reflect what happened.
Read it objectively.
"But Deskovic could have been out much sooner had Sonia Sotomayor not rejected his habeas corpus petition appeal because the paperwork arrived four days late in 1997. "
To me that means that Sotomayor personally rejected his late paperwork in 1997.
The appeals ruling in question was in 2000, and was co-written by Sotomayor.
Also of note Jeanine Pirro, current Republican nhominee for state AG, refused to hear his appeal.
What? JDS and Gothamist not being 100% factual and accurate? Stop the presses!