We Owe Gratitude to Due Process Precursor
Randall T. Eng, Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Department, writes: We owe a debt of gratitude to the Magna Carta, for it is the precursor of the concept of due process.
April 30, 2015 at 08:00 PM
6 minute read
Some of the most fundamental constitutional rights that lie at the heart of the American justice system actually have their origin in a document signed by an English king nearly 800 years ago. This document is the Magna Carta, which King John reluctantly signed at the insistence of his barons in June 1215. The 63 chapters of the Magna Carta granted certain “liberties” to “all the free men of our realm for ourselves and our heirs for ever. ” Chief among the liberties granted by the Magna Carta is what we today view as the right to due process of law. Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta, which forms the cornerstone of this right, decreed that “ No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseized, outlawed, banished, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his Peers or by the Law of the land.” It is from this chapter of the Magna Carta that the framers of our Bill of Rights derived the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The 14th Amendment similarly protects against the deprivation of these basic individual rights by any action of state government that does not comport with due process, and thus also rests upon Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta.
The right to due process, historically derived from the liberties granted by the Magna Carta, was the foundation for the Appellate Division, Second Department's 2014 opinion in People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d 12. In Hamilton, the Second Department, over which I preside, held that a “freestanding” claim of actual innocence may serve as a ground to vacate a criminal conviction under CPL 440.10(1)(h). In recognizing such a claim for the first time at the appellate level, my colleague Justice Sylvia Hinds-Radix, who authored the opinion, wrote on behalf of the court that “it is abhorrent to our sense of justice and fair play that someone innocent of a crime may be incarcerated or otherwise punished for a crime which he or she did not commit.”
In Hamilton, the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree stemming from the shooting of Nathaniel Cash in Brooklyn. At his 1993 trial, the primary witness against the defendant was the victim's girlfriend, Jewel Smith. Although the defendant had intended to present an alibi defense, he did not do so because one of his planned witnesses claimed to be too ill to appear, and the other claimed to be too frightened to appear. After the jury verdict but prior to sentencing, Smith recanted her testimony, asserting that she had testified falsely because the police had threatened her with criminal prosecution and the removal of her children. The defendant then moved to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30, relying largely upon Smith's recantation. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's motion, finding that the recantation was unreliable. The defendant was then sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life imprisonment.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5First Lawsuit Filed Alleging Contraceptive Depo-Provera Caused Brain Tumor
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250