Legal Law admin  

Life After Habeas: How To Seal Your Records

The two main ways to destroy records [expunged] it is by winning a habeas petition or by a Section 1983 action. This article will address each.

A district court sitting on habeas must “resolve the matter as required by law and justice” (28 USC § 2243), and the purpose of the appeal is to “return the defendant to the position they would have been in if the [constitutional] the violation never occurred. “Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045, 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) citing United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1468 (9th Cir. 1994). It follows that the district court is free to design an appropriate remedy Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 US 770, 775 (1987) (“[A] the court has broad discretion to condition a sentence granting habeas remedy. “).

One form of redress that a district court can order in a habeas proceeding is the expungement of a criminal record related to an unconstitutional conviction. In Woodall v. Pettibone, 465 F.2d 49 (4th Cir. 1972), the Fourth Circuit held that an earlier decision, in which a Maryland statute requiring that minors in a certain geographic area be tried as adults was unconstitutional, should be applied retroactively. . Id. At 52. The case came before the Fourth Circuit on appeal of the denial of a habeas petition by the district court, and the court determined that those indicted under the unconstitutional statute allegedly had the right to have their convictions be They will declare null and void and deleted. Id. At 52-53. In particular, the court rejected the State’s argument that erasing the records of some 122 people subject to the decision was too burdensome. The court stated that expungement “is an equitable remedy that is granted in balancing the interests of the defendants and the state.” Id. At 52.

In AM v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004), the Seventh Circuit considered the appeal of the State of Illinois to the district court’s grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. At 789. After holding that the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights had been violated, the court upheld the award of the order and explicitly ordered the State of Illinois to erase the petitioner’s juvenile delinquency award unless it gave him a new trial. Id. At 797-802.

Likewise, in Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 340 F. Supp.2d 773 (ED Mich. 2004), the court determined that the habeas petitioner’s 1971 conviction was unconstitutional. Id. At 774. In considering appropriate relief, the court stated that “[a] the federal district court has the authority, in a habeas corpus proceeding, to order the expungement of a habeas applicant’s criminal record against all persons who maintain custody of such records. “Id. at 776. The court ordered the following: the conviction against the petitioner for the crimes of possession of LSD and possession of marijuana of the Huron County Circuit Court since January 20, 1971 is annulled and the conviction record is cleared. [Citation omitted]. The Huron County, Michigan Clerk of the Circuit Court will send a copy of this Court’s order to any person or agency that has been notified of the arrest or conviction of the petitioner involved in these crimes. [Citation omitted]. Id. At 777;[2] see also Scott v. District Attorney, Jefferson Parish, 309 F. Supp. 833, 835 n. 2, 839 (ED La. 1970) (granting a writ of habeas to the petitioner convicted of a misdemeanor offense to prevent the petitioner from suffering collateral consequences of a criminal record) affirmed without opinion at 437 F.2d 500.

The Ninth Circuit has also found expungement to be an appropriate remedy in a successful habeas proceeding. In White v. White, 925 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991), the Ninth Circuit considered a federal inmate’s habeas petition challenging the revocation of his parole. Id. At 288. The government alleged that the case was moot because the petitioner was, at that time, in custody for subsequent misconduct rather than for the revocation of parole that was the subject of the petition. Id. At 290. The court held that the collateral consequences for the petitioner of the conviction, including possible employment discrimination and the use of the reversal findings in a subsequent action, justified continued jurisdiction. Id. Then, after finding that the petitioner had been denied his due process rights in the parole revocation proceeding, the court ordered the district court to issue the brief and order the expungement of the violation record. petitioner’s parole. Id. At 292.

When asked by the state to address unconstitutional arrests and convictions, the Ninth Circuit has not hesitated to confirm that district courts have broad authority to order expungement. Wilson v. Webster, 467 F.2d 1282, 1283 (9th Cir. 1972) (holds that plaintiffs alleging unconstitutional arrests could initiate an expungement action for state arrests under 42 USC § 1983); Shipp v. Todd, 568 F.2d 133, 133-34 (9th Cir. 1978) (holds that the plaintiff alleging an unconstitutional burglary conviction could bring a state criminal expungement action under 42 USC § 1983) ; Maurer v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 691 F.2d 434, 437 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that plaintiff could seek expungement of allegedly unconstitutional arrest by LAPD under 42 USC § 1983). This authority arises from the recognition that even when the accused has served his sentence, “the maintenance of his criminal record continues to operate to his detriment.” Shipp, 568 F.2d at 133-34.

A district court may also order the expungement of federal court convictions and arrests as a matter of auxiliary jurisdiction over the convictions themselves. United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). This jurisdiction is limited, however, to the elimination of illegal or unconstitutional arrests or convictions or the correction of clerical errors. Id. Prior to Sumner, some Ninth Circuit courts had held that federal convictions could be expunged on fair grounds when “extraordinary circumstances” existed, although the underlying conviction was not alleged to be constitutionally invalid. See, for example, Doe v. United States, 964 F. Supp. 1429 (SDCal. 1997) (issuing an order to show cause why the plaintiffs’ record should not be expunged when the harm to the plaintiff’s employment outweighs the state’s interest in maintaining a juvenile conviction record). However, Sumner indicated that the required “extraordinary circumstances” relate to the circumstances of the underlying conviction or arrest rather than its subsequent effects and that such circumstances are only found when the arrest or conviction is illegal or an administrative error has occurred. .

Therefore, whether an individual’s criminal record contains federal or state convictions, constitutional weakness in the conviction constitutes grounds for expungement. Consequently, the Respondent’s argument that the injury to the Claimant’s employment prospects and the unwarranted exposure to longer sentences do not provide the “exceptional circumstances” for expungement is meaningless. The distinction is well illustrated in United States v. Vasquez, 74 F. conviction. Id., At 968 citing US v. Smith, 940 F.2d 395, 396 (9th Cir. 1991). The Vasquez Court recognized that “Smith and other Ninth Circuit cases suggest that a defendant must establish some type of structural error that erodes the legality or validity of his underlying conviction before cancellation can be granted.” Id. Whatever the general scope of the “exceptional circumstances” justifying removal, constitutional weakness in state or federal convictions is sufficient.

As such, AM v. Butler, Woodall c. Pettibone and White v. All of White’s decisions support the proposal that the entire court order the destruction of records. Both 28 USC § 2254 and 42 USC § 1983 serve as vehicles for rectifying constitutional violations by the state. No type of action is limited to the remedies listed; rather, both ask the court to exercise broad authority to shape adequate and complete reparation.

Leave A Comment