From Digg: “The court used the case to announce it was overruling the two precedents the Supreme Court had used when it established the “unique circumstances” doctrine in the 1960s.”
There seems to be a lot of debate over whether the criminal in question is actually having his rights revoked. His appeal was denied because it was filed late. It was filed late because the convicting judge told him he had 18 days to file rather than the legal 14 days. In my opinion, the guy’s lawyer should have known better and filed the appeal on time. Secondly, the guy can file another appeal within a legally allowed timeframe. Much to my dislike, the United States justice system allows for what seems like unlimited appeals for convicted criminals.
I really dislike that people are standing up for this guy, his rights have not been stepped on. He did not file his appeal on time. Period. That should be the end of the discussion. If I went to court and told them that I did not know about a law that I had been given a citation for breaking, I would be told “ignorance of the law is not justification for breaking the law” and I would be dealt a punishment. There would be no argument over this issue. But because a man had his appeal denied, everyone is going “oh, poor guy, his rights are being trampled on”.
Seriously, is that what this country is coming to?
Michael Koby 