WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Due Process Institute and four other civil rights institutions filed an amicus brief this past week on behalf of Michael Bowe, who is serving an unjust prison sentence based on the application of an outdated law, argues the brief.
The brief argues Bowe did not commit a “crime of violence” when he discharged his firearm, leading to his arrest.
It also asserts that, because of the nature of Bowe’s crime, and the fact that he is incarcerated in a federal facility and not a state facility, no piece of legislation stops him from petitioning for habeas corpus.
When some incarcerated, like Bowe, petitions for habeas corpus, they are challenging the legality of their imprisonment, according to the Legal Information Institute.
The Due Process Institution and other amici filing the brief believe Bowe’s rights would be protected in any circuit court other than that of the Eleventh Circuit, reported the brief.
“If Mr. Bowe had been sentenced within the Fourth, Sixth, or Ninth Circuits, he would have received authorization to file a successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255,” writes the brief, continuing, “Similarly situated (incarcerated) in those circuits have received authorization.”
The law bars state incarcerated from appealing their sentences when they file for habeas corpus, according to the brief. However, the brief argues that, because Bowe is a federal incarcerated, he should be able to challenge his 10 year sentence.
Those filing the brief hold the Supreme Court’s involvement in the case is “vital to ensure the equal and fair application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA),” which is meant to expedite post conviction litigation for all incarcerated, state and federal.
Incarcerated “are directed to file their claims as soon as possible. That is exactly what Mr. Bowe did, but he is being punished for it,” states the brief, arguing, the wider consequence of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling prevents those incarcerated from bringing forward their claims, as they could be “punished” like Bowe.
The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling also creates some inconsistencies within the federal court system, creating “arbitrary results,” that “perversely” encourages those incarcerated to delay challenging their sentences like Bowe, argues the brief.
The amicus brief emphasizes the importance of the Supreme Court’s injunction in the matter, asserting that it is necessary to end the unfair treatment of those incarcerated and to vindicate the purpose of AEDPA.
