Welcome to PatsFans.com

The Supreme Court, an interesting decision...

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DarrylS, Jun 18, 2007.

  1. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Sep 13, 2004
    Likes Received:
    +1,361 / 34 / -35

    Not about the merits of this case, as this guy deserves to be behind high walls, but we advised by the sentencing judge that appeals on the case should be filed by a date certain.. his attorneys filed the appeal one day early, but was later thrown out as the sentencing judge made a mistake on the date.. the Supremes upheld the decision.


    Washington - Lawyers and clients beware: If you think you can count on judges to give you correct deadlines for filing appeals, you could be out of luck.

    That was the gist of a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Thursday that dismissed a Cleveland man's appeal of a murder conviction because he filed a legal motion too late - even though he met the deadline mistakenly set by a federal judge.

    The high court's 5-4 ruling means that Keith Bowles, 34, cannot continue appealing his conviction for his role in a 1998 group beating that resulted in the death of a Painesville man, said Bowles' lawyer, Paul Mancino Jr.

    Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled correctly in 2005 that it had no choice but to refuse to hear Bowles' appeal because he had filed notice of his intent to appeal two days after a 14-day federal deadline that applied in his case.

    U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent had scribbled on a court document in 2004 that Bowles' deadline for filing the notice was Feb. 27 - a window of 17 days. Bowles' motion was filed on Feb. 26. In an interview earlier this year with The Plain Dealer, Nugent said he didn't remember the particulars of the case. Nobody in the case disputed that Nugent had erred

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>