Saturday, September 24, 2016

Stogner V. California Case

The following article can be found here.  The bold red is mine.  I think we should request the Governor or Legislature to seek a declaratory judgement from the Supreme Court of Guam on Bill 326.  We also need to elect lawmakers who can properly compose bills using logic and reason rather than having their emotions dictate how the bill should be written.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court: Reviving Expired Statute of Limitations Violates Ex Post Facto

U.S. Supreme Court: Reviving Expired Statute of Limitations Violates Ex Post Facto Clause 

Reversing the California Court of Appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California's recent law reviving criminal liability for previously time-barred prosecutions violated the Constitutional proscription against ex post facto laws. 

Catering to public outrage against child molesters, the California Legislature in 1993 enacted a revised statute of limitations for such crimes - Penal Code (PC) §803(g). In place of the previous general three-year felony statute of limitations, §803(g) permitted sex crimes against children to be prosecuted within one year of the victim's report to the police. Moreover, in a 1996 amendment (PC §803(g)(3)(A)), the Legislature acknowledged that it intended such retroactivity to apply regardless of how old the offense was. 

In 1998, based upon these intervening new laws, Marion Stogner was indicted for such crimes occurring between 1955 and 1973 - 40 to 22 years after the previous statutes of limitations had expired. After the trial court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed the denial (Stogner v. Superior Ct. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1229), Stogner petitioned the high court on writ of certiorari, claiming his indictment was unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

A divided 5 - 4 Court held that three factors, taken together here, produced the kind of retroactivity that the Constitution forbids: (1) creation of a new criminal limitations period, (2) permitting prosecutions that the passage of time had previously barred, and (3) enacting such a statute after prior limitations periods had expired. 

The Court first relied upon its venerable 1798 ex post facto precedent in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386. Interpreting U.S. Const. Art. I, §9, cl.3 [federal government] and Art. I, § 10, cl. I [states], the Court noted that liberty is protected by preventing governments from enacting statutes with "manifestly unjust and oppressive" retroactive effects. Citing precedent, the Court observed others had described such retroactivity of a lately revised statute of limitations period as "unfair and dishonest," a denial of "fair warning" and a failing of the government "to play by its own rules." The Court noted such retroactive laws invite "arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation," "violent acts which might grow out of the feelings of the moment" - such as California's PC §§803(g) and (g)(3)(A). 

Second, in reviewing 18th century British Parliament precedent - from whence our ex post facto jurisprudence stems - the Court noted the prohibition recognized against new punishments "where the party was not [previously], by law, liable to any punishment." This category, including any law that "aggravates a crime" or "makes it greater than it was, when committed," exemplifies the evil of California's §803(g) because it creates a "forfeiture or disability, not incurred in the ordinary course of law." 

Third, the Court reviewed approvingly a litany of historical interpretations of the Ex Post Facto Clause that forbade resurrection of a time-barred prosecution. 

In sum, the Court held that California's law subjecting Stogner to prosecution long after the state had, in effect, granted him amnesty, was "unfair" and accordingly reversed the California Court of Appeal. The dissent would not have given Calder such weight, and morally criticized the majority's view as "disregard[ing] the interests of those victims of child abuse who have found the courage to face their accusers and bring them to justice." 

Indeed, a disturbing consequence of the Stogner ruling is that a sizeable number of lately discovered long-suppressed child molestation cases will now go unprosecuted. These include an estimated 1,000 molestations over the past 60 years in the Boston Archdiocese of the Catholic Church alone. And within the criminal justice system, examples include Calvin Eugene Moore, a former Fresno, California juvenile-hall guard turned Baptist pastor, whose charges for alleged abuse 20 years ago have now been dropped and who will soon return to work as a juvenile-corrections officer, and former Orange County, California Superior Court Judge Ronald Kline, accused of a 1979 molestation, whose charges have recently been dropped. 

But as USC Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky reflected on Stogner, "[a]lthough providing for the prosecution of sex offenders is a crucial government interest, it does not justify a law that violates the Ex Post Facto Clause." See: Stogner v. California, 155 L.Ed.2nd 194, 123 S.Ct. 1382 (2003). 

39 comments:

  1. That's well and good, but this is involves civil judgments, not criminal. There's no such thing here as innocence of guilty, only liability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:16 pm,

      It involves the statutes of limitations in sexual abuse cases, which is criminal.

      Delete
    2. Fight Against JustismordSeptember 24, 2016 at 11:43 PM

      The case Diana brought here is, in fact, a lifting of statute of limitation case in criminal law. On Guam, a similar lifting of the statute of limitation was signed into a civil law by the governor. Everyone is aware of the distinction between criminal and civil law.

      However, the analogy is still there. If lifting the statute of limitation violates the constitution in criminal law, it may violate the constitution in civil law, as well.

      In addition, the Guam Legislature had already lifted the statute of limitation in the civil case for a 2 years long period of time in 2011. This 2 years has passed and the window of opportunity expired. Now, it may be very well against the constitution to lift the same statutes of limitation again, this time in perpetuity.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I meant to say that the law on Guam is civil only. But I do know what you're getting at. Good law or bad, CNMI Lawyer is right about one thing: we will know soon enough if it's unconstitutional.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 1:29 am,

      You mean "inorganic." I agree that the sample I gave in the OP dealt with a criminal case rather than a civil one. Therefore, the law passed may not violate an ex post fact law.

      Delete
    5. Fight Against JustismordSeptember 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM

      The constitutional violation of this law is coming from its threatening of innocent people.

      In the immediate surrounding of the abuser, and in relation to the abuser, it is not clear who is culpable and who is not. The law deliberately omits the description of "aider, abettor, acting in concert", etc. in order to be able to accuse innocent people and institutions. This is a gross neglect of constitutional care.

      If this law remains untouched and not replaced by another one which is in harmony with the constitution, then it will become a shame of Guam's democratic institutions and an embarrassment to its Legislature.

      Delete
  2. Senator Frank Blas Jr. authored this legislation. He doesn't have my vote. It's time we put in new people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good idea, dear Anonymous at 7:52 AM! We should prepare a "Voter's Guide", a list of all candidates running for the Senate and indicate how they voted for this sham piece of a bill. We may join those who are against the retroactive pay raise these senators gave to themselves.

      Voters could decide if they want to vote on these failed senators or choose some others. This can be done as non-profit Catholics, because we don't make political statements, we only share publicly available information!

      Delete
  3. Let's do a CLEAN SWEEP of the incumbents in the legislature and put in a whole new slew of senators!

    WIPE OUT that horrid lot of incumbents!

    We need lawmakers that are able to think with legal minds! We don't need idiots like Frank Blas etc.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the thing about democracy: we have the power to do something about it, but never do. Such is the descent

      Delete
    2. Yes, we can do. We should do! Send these senators back home to tend the chicken yard. That way we could see some use of them!

      Delete
  4. God appointed our senators through the votes of our people. By his Divine Will these senators will be supported for re election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, God never appointed them! People elected them. People can elect others now. Lol.

      Delete
  5. Diana,

    Just wanted to point out that the jungle is apparently not interested in the protection or healing for the abused. According to their standards when someone says they were abused, they were abused. Ironically, they are now attacking Jon Diaz who has been supposedly saying he was abused years ago. I just dont understand these people. I guess it matters who the accused happens to be.

    Pas!
    -Jokers Wild

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right. Very transparent what they are doing. Independent from any true fact, those are the only victims whom they authorize to be victims. Everything is manufactured. Or, rather, fabricated.

      Delete
  6. The jungle became a place of people who compulsively interfere with church affairs and church leadership. I mean they have no business to play this game, but nevertheless they have to, they feel compelled and forced by some internal forces to act like this.

    These are mostly retired, old people who otherwise have a very boring life. No wonder they look for fun and entertainment. It is a very sick way though to do this on the expense of legitimate, Vatican appointed church leadership. When they vilify our well respected church authorities, they deviate from and detach themselves from true Catholic spirituality.

    They wanted to override Archbishop Apuron's pastoral decisions. When Apuron resisted, they pulled out the sex abuse card. It is recorded in the Jungle archives. Now, they want to tell Archbishop Hon what he can do and what he cannot. Isn't it amazing? They think it is okay to take over pastoral decisions from the Pastor!

    What would they pull out against Hon, we cannot know at this point. But looks like they are utilizing their evil forces and dark connections to cause harm. This is the only way they can justify their poor life and miserable being in from of others.

    But do not underestimate Hon. He has tools in his had to teach the misguided some mores. I would not be surprised if the Toto church would be the first to close its doors and being sold as church funds are depleted by the lawsuits against the Catholic Church.

    Do you want to picket and protest then to save Tot? Well, it could be much too late then to second guess obedience to the church, my friends.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "They wanted to override Archbishop Apuron's pastoral decisions. When Apuron resisted, they pulled out the sex abuse card. It is recorded in the Jungle archives. Now, they want to tell Archbishop Hon what he can do and what he cannot. Isn't it amazing? They think it is okay to take over pastoral decisions from the Pastor!"

      Well yes you're right. It has been their goal to take over the church and take over the role of Archbishop of Guam. You can read it on their website. If they don't like something, they'll kick and scream like spoiled brats until they get their way. They need to be disciplined.

      Delete
    2. others in Jungle nation live off Island yet they interfear in the affairs of our Island community. They should not interfear in the issues of our domestic church as they are not from Guam.

      Delete
  7. If CCOG, Rohr want Hon gone which sent by the Pope. There is only one answer.... Pope Francis excommunicating all of them .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Diana Gov.Calvo is addressing Guam on src abuse. I don't believe he is a part of an old folks group that lives a boaring life.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Diana. Can we please stay current on current events? Please!?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gov. Calvo shows compassion to the victims of episcopal sexual abuse via his address to our island nation.
    Gov calls us as one nation united under God to begin healing the deep emotional psychological trauma of episcopal abuse on our Island. Message is clear. Remove abusers from power - heal victims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:27 pm,

      Due process comes first. The canonical trial is still going on, and it will be determined whether he is guilty or not.

      Delete
    2. no matter result of canonical trial there needs to be a civil case on island to determine who is telling truth.

      Delete
    3. Gov speaks out of turn and is talking bs to sentimentally appeal to the mob. That same mob that protests and attacks visitors at the airport. When he says things like "psychological healing of the victims of episcopal abuse" he is condemning our bishop without a formal trial and without the "victims" having been thoroughly examined. Shame on him using the bully pulpit to kick a person when he is down. This is an example of bad leadership, cowardly and totally sniveling behavior. Instead of leading people towards a common good he is feeding his popularity with the carcass of our bishop's reputation and appealing to people worst instincts. Disgusting.

      Delete
    4. Define term " episcopal abuse"?

      Delete
  11. This is all about TIM!! like TIM said I did all this for what Revenge,Property,Power,The man even call the Pope papa, that disrespectful,he call himself a real Catholic so call man,LOL The man's not even from the Island talk all about stop the money,he sure is, having people suing their own Church,the man a divider not a uniter. If you want to call him a man.when they find the Bishop innocent, I hope he turns the table and sues Tim Rohr. and the so call victims, you have to live with these lies. when your time comes there will be no script to read,the Bishop ''INNOCENT''

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if any of the so call victims are related to any of CCOG group or John Toves,that needs to be investigated?? Tim trying to bring John back for a another defamation suit against the Bishop,Tim needs to be sued for Defamation of Character of the Bishop, everything he writes in his stupid blog,it's all bad talk about the Bishop, who is Innocent they're all acting like he's guilty!not only is Tim Rohr Defamation his Character he damaging his reputation. ''Innocent until proven guilty ''

      Delete
    2. Anon at 5:59--
      Not so sure Apuron would want to sue Tim Rohr--it's exactly what Tim wants. That would mean Apuron would be deposed and he'd be under oath. Sounds like this John Toves guy sorta knew some stuff....he's said he would love to be sued as well.
      But....you all gotta wait for the canonical trial to be done with!

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:07 pm,

      I do not think Archbishop Apuron would be worried about being under oath. He swore an oath before Pope Francis that he was innocent of those sexual allegations. Pope Francis granted him a canonical trial, which is very rare. Most bishops have been accused of the same allegations as Archbishop Apuron, but rather than going through a canonical trial, they were removed from their position. Archbishop Apuron, on the other hand, was not only granted a canonical trial but he still remains the Archbishop of Agana.

      As for John Toves, he claimed that his relative was molested by Archbishop Apuron......a relative he never spoke to. Where did John Toves get the information that his relative was molested? He got it from someone else. He never got it from his relative. His relative also never came out.

      Delete
  12. Any word how these blatant cases of disobedience - Father Jeff and Father Mike and Father Efren - are being treated? I am sure if a priest formed at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary was involved, Hon would have acted immediately and publicly and vigorously....... Double standards...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are double standards alright. When Hon first arrived he told ALL priests to submit their resignations. And all the diocesan priests did exactly that. Guess who didn't submit resignations? Presbyters from RMS.
      Did Hon take any action against them? No
      It's not just the diocesan priests who did not read that letter. There were presbyters from RMS who didn't read it either. Did Hon yell at them and slam his hand on the table at them? No

      You like the "double standards" when they work against the diocesan priests don't you?
      But if any action is taken against presbyters from RMS suddenly your crying PERSECUTION

      Delete
    2. One disobedience leads to another. Disrespect to a bishop to disrespect against the Pope. No wonder! Whoever defies rightful authority wants to replace it by himself! This is the nature of defiance and disobedience. Then you feel yourself a king, a ruler, an emperor, how can anyone be above you! No more authority left you could ever be respectful to again.

      Jungle folks now show exactly that! They show to cease to be Catholics, how to badmouth Pope Francis himself. It is about disobedience and disrespect going foul, ultimately to the Supreme Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome!

      Dominican SoulSeptember 27, 2016 at 2:55 PM

      After the invasion of progressive bishops on the hierarchical position during the papacy of Francis, the traditional Catholics have impression that he himself is one of "the wolves", or at least that he is willing to dance with them.

      Delete
    3. I knew it from the beginning that jungle folks will turn against Pope Francis sooner or later. Oh, the hypocrites! Everybody knows that Pope Francis is heavily criticized, even attacked by traditional groups. The jungle traditional group, however, tried to hide their disfavor towards Pope Francis and disguise themselves as in agreement with the Pope!

      But this is all farce. The jungle tries to outdo all traditionalist groups, the jungle is one of the most radical of them! So it is just logical that they cannot like a "liberal" Pope, as they keep calling Pope Francis. Now however, they feel so strong that they drop all disguise and come out against Pope Francis is full arms.

      The arch-conservative and atavistic jungle is in fact a bunch of deceivers who are, actually, the most ardent enemies of every progress our Catholic Pope, our beloved Francis tries to achieve around the globe.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 6:32 pm,

      Pope Francis is not a "liberal" pope. He follows the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

      Delete
    5. Yeah. It is only them who think Francis is a "liberal".

      Delete
    6. WOW!!! who's next those jungle folks going to turn on my God.

      Delete
  13. Joe Naputi in the PDN:

    http://www.guampdn.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/09/26/voice-people/91097298/

    God bless Joe! We need to support each other.

    ReplyDelete