Houston Lawyer Fighting Denial of Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation for Innocent Client
In a letter on Monday, Leonard Higgins of the comptroller's judiciary section wrote that he couldn't approve the compensation because of a problem with the documentation in Alfred Dewayne Brown's application.
June 26, 2019 at 11:32 AM
4 minute read
Susman Godfrey managing partner Neal Manne plans to keep fighting after the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts denied state compensation for his pro bono client's wrongful conviction.
Manne since 2015 has sought state compensation under the Tim Cole Act for Alfred Dewayne Brown, a Houston man recently declared actually innocent in the 2003 murder of a police officer, and who was wrongfully imprisoned for 12 years—nine on death row.
In a letter on Monday, Leonard Higgins of the comptroller's judiciary section wrote that he couldn't approve the compensation because of a problem with the documentation in Brown's application. The comptroller must base its decision on certain types of verified court documents, one of which is a motion to dismiss based on actual innocence, explained Higgins.
“It is not clear that the district court has jurisdiction to withdraw and reenter a dismissal, or enter a second dismissal in Mr. Brown's case. Consequently, the amended motion to dismiss and the order of dismissal do not clearly indicate on their face that Mr. Brown is entitled to compensation,” Higgins wrote in his letter that denied Brown's compensation.
Brown's actual innocence finding followed a rare procedure. It started when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 2015 granted habeas corpus relief and ordered a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. The Harris County District Attorney's Office in 2015 moved to dismiss the case—but not for actual innocence. Later, the district attorney's office brought in Special Prosecutor John Raley to investigate if Brown should be reindicted or declared actually innocent. Raley issued a 185-page report that found no credible evidence to implicate Brown, and in fact, found strong evidence supporting Brown's alibi. Next, 351st District Judge George Powell reopened Brown's case in order to issue a new motion to dismiss based on actual innocence.
Texas Lawyer spoke with Manne to learn his thoughts about the comptroller's decision. Here are his answers, edited for clarity and brevity.
Legally speaking, why do you think the decision is wrong?
Under the law of the state, set forth by the Texas Supreme Court, the comptroller's function is ministerial only. Here, the comptroller is making judgments about who is right and who is wrong. That's exactly what the Texas Supreme Court has said the comptroller may not do. Mr. Brown has been declared actually innocent by a court, and that is all that's required under the statute for compensation. It's not the comptroller's job to pick and choose which actually innocent people get compensated, and which actually innocent people do not.
Can you briefly explain any similar cases that laid precedent for what you argue should have happened instead?
There are at least two cases that I'm aware of where an initial dismissal did not include the magic words “actual innocence,” but a district attorney, and later a district court, recognized actual innocence and a second order was issued. In each of those cases, no one questioned whether the court had jurisdiction or whether the subsequent order was sufficient to trigger the Tim Cole Act. The most recent example is the case of Hannah Overton. On exactly the same facts in which compensation has been denied to Mr. Brown, the comptroller paid compensation to her without any question.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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.
You Might Like
View AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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