State v. M.D.T., Minn.S.Ct., 5/22/2013. You wouldn’t think that an expungment opinion could generate such a fuss and be such a good read. But you’d be wrong. Poor Ms. M.D.T. made a one-off mistake: she forged a pain medication prescription because she didn’t think the prescribed dosage was up to the task. She got charged and convicted of aggravated forgery. Years ago. Stay of Imposition of sentence. Successful probation. She rebuilt her life within the limitations of that conviction, but that conviction was nonetheless holding her back.
So, she asked the court to expunge her records – all of them, including records that the courts created but happened to be living in various executive branch offices. The first time the court said, no. She waited a few years, asked again. This time, the trial court granted that request and the court of appeals affirmed. Read about that here. That opinion seemed destined for a bad reception in the supreme court. And, with the exception of Justices Paul Anderson and Page that’s what it got.
Chief Justice Gildea, in a 4-3 opinion, reverses, concluding that the court has no authority to order the expungment of records either created by the executive branch and residing therein, or created by the judicial branch, copies of which reside within an executive branch filing cabinet. The majority opinion is mean spirited and extraordinarily narrow-minded. The real fireworks, however, are in the concurrence by Justice Stras, and the dissent from Justices Paul Anderson and Page.
Justice Stras confirms his true colors as a Scalia “originalist” saying that the state’s judicial power must be understood by looking to the territorial courts in existence at the time of statehood and ratification of a state constitution. The business of those territorial courts was to “decide cases.” That’s it. He debunks the entire construct of “inherent [judicial] authority” as a ruse that means only what a majority of the court happens to think it means. In doing so, he takes a swipe at the court’s recent use of that “ethereal” doctrine in deciding Obeta II, (overruling Saldana) and at the court’s taxation of lawyers to fund the public defender system.
Justice Paul Anderson, nearing retirement, pens a compelling, compassionate dissent, in which Justice Page joins. Here’ the best paragraph:
I begin my analysis by reiterating some of the key facts underlying M.D.T.’s second petition for expungement. I begin this way because if this case is to be properly understood, M.D.T.’s story must be told. Her story is a cautionary tale about how important it is to know and follow the law. It is a tale about how an ordinary citizen who commits an act that is both foolish and criminal endures the consequences that flow from that act. It is also about how the executive exercises its power to prosecute a criminal act. But most importantly, it is a tale about how a citizen searches for redemption and attempts to move on with her life after having paid her debt to society for a criminal act. In many ways, M.D.T.’s story also reflects who we are as a society—our concept of justice, how we punish, our ability to forgive, and even our willingness to forgive. Finally, M.D.T.’s story, ending with the result reached by our court today, illustrates how those of us who inhabit Minnesota’s judiciary differ in our understanding of what constitutes a core function of the judiciary, how the judiciary is empowered to use its authority to perform a core function, and, more broadly, the role the judiciary plays in our scheme of government under the Minnesota Constitution.
Well said, Paul. Can’t go out any better than that. Six of the judges who looked at this file, this individual, thought the records should be expunged. Only five thought otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment