U.S. Supreme Court Tells Defendants Not to Trust Judges
"It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch," wrote Justice Souter, dissenting in the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Bowles v. Russell, Case No. 06-5306 (Decided June 14, 2007).
Keith Bowles filed his appeal of a federal district court ruling that denied his request for a hearing within the deadline he was given by the district court judge. Unfortunately, the judge was wrong and Bowles' was denied his appeal because he missed the real deadline.
Bowles was convicted of murder in 1999. He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. Bowles unsuccessfully appealed his conviction. In 2002, he filed a federal habeas corpus application (demand for a hearing) in the federal district court. His application was denied. He failed to file his appeal of the district court's ruling within the 30-day deadline, but on February 10, 2004 the court gave him a further 14-days to file. The district court judge told Bowles he had until February 27 to file his appeal. Bowles filed on February 26, before the judge's deadline, but two days too late.
Although common sense tells us that Bowles should be given a second chance because he met the district court judge's deadline, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the judge's error.
Federal statutes allow a judge to give a defendant, who missed his 30 day deadline, an additional 14 days to file an appeal. The Court said that because the 14-day deadline is mandated by a federal law, rather than by court rules, courts have no authority give a defendant any flexibility.
The majority of the Court reasoned that because Congress determines what cases the courts can hear, Congress can also decide what conditions apply to the courts hearing a case. Because Bowles missed the 14-day deadline, regardless of the judge's error, the statute barred the court from hearing his case.
The Court's minority disagreed. Justice Souter argued that Bowles should be able to rely on the judge's statements. Souter also wrote that he believed a deadline created by statute only bars a defendant's appeal, having missed the deadline, if the Congress specifically said so. Here, the statute set a deadline, but did not forbid a judge from accepting an appeal when unique circumstances exist. The majority said judges were barred, by law, from helping a defendant, even when it was the judge's error that caused the problem.
Following the Bowles case, defendants must calculate their deadlines themselves. Even when a judge makes a mistake, if the deadline is set by federal law, the judge can do nothing to help the defendant.
