Who pays for this

[Hammer]

just an example

A man who served nearly two decades behind bars for a wrongful murder conviction wants more than $30 million in damages for his ordeal.

So, I assume he is suing the state (NY in this case). Where does that money come from and is it passed along to taxpayers?

[Kevin Seitzer]

I don't know what the proper amount of compensation is, but for 20 years of my life, I'd want a lot more than nothing, and since the state imprisoned him, presumably the state (yes, the taxpayers) would try to repay him for that.

[Kevin Seitzer]

There's a similar case going on in Texas where a man was wrongfully imprisoned for murder for 18 years until the real murderer confessed, and the state is fighting paying him anything for it. I can't fathom that. Arguing over the amount, I can understand. Arguing he's due nothing seems quite unjust.

About his conviction being overturned:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7266470.html

About the compensation issue:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/02/19/2861095/one-word-keeps-anthony-graves.html

[schlesinj]

just an example

A man who served nearly two decades behind bars for a wrongful murder conviction wants more than $30 million in damages for his ordeal.

So, I assume he is suing the state (NY in this case). Where does that money come from and is it passed along to taxpayers?

Municipalities can finance those items by issuing bonds. I know of a wrongful death case involving a police officer in PA.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Municipalities can finance those items by issuing bonds. I know of a wrongful death case involving a police officer in PA.

A murder conviction would be a felony prosecuted by the State of New York, would it not?

[billbuckner]

Did somebody say murder? :flame:

[Bob Kohm]

just an example

A man who served nearly two decades behind bars for a wrongful murder conviction wants more than $30 million in damages for his ordeal.

So, I assume he is suing the state (NY in this case). Where does that money come from and is it passed along to taxpayers?

It says "STATE OF NEW YORK vs. XYZ" on the indictment, so yes, the taxpayers of the State of New York, who wrongly imprisoned the victim, are goign to be financially liable for their mistake.

[schlesinj]

A murder conviction would be a felony prosecuted by the State of New York, would it not?

The settlement was financed.

[Lucky]

Large and interesting area of the law here.

As a general rule, states have sovereign immunity from tort liability, meaning they cannot be sued by their citizens for personal injury, property damage, wrongful death, etc. There are exceptions. One is when the state allows itself to be sued, as in the case of creating a Claims Commission or similar agency which processes claims by citizens. Another is when the state is required by law to have insurance, such as liability insurance on state vehicles. Injured parties can sue to the amount of the coverage. Another (saving the best for last) is when the state's actions violate the U.S. Constitution. This comes up quite frequently, as the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. 42 USC 1983 specifically provides for that cause of action. Cities are political subdivisions of the state, and enjoy the same immunities and liabilities.

As for wrongly convicted prisoners, Bhob is exactly right. The state sent him to prison, the state is liable. Some states have statutes which provide a specific amount of compensation for each year the person is incarcerated. Texas is this way. Texas is claiming the guy isn't technically entitled to the money.

Most cities with which I am familiar have either insurance or a risk pooling arrangement to deal with large verdicts or settlements against them. Some states have a reserve. There's no reason they couldn't fund it using some other mechanism, depending upon what their state law says.

[cardboardbox]

There's a similar case going on in Texas where a man was wrongfully imprisoned for murder for 18 years until the real murderer confessed, and the state is fighting paying him anything for it. I can't fathom that. Arguing over the amount, I can understand. Arguing he's due nothing seems quite unjust.

Is the state of Texas really fighting this or are we talking about a handful of people

[Lucky]

Well, not the entire state. But the state government is. Specifically, the Comptroller's office, which is part of the executive branch, which is led by Governor Rick Perry.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Well, not the entire state. But the state government is. Specifically, the Comptroller's office, which is part of the executive branch, which is led by Governor Rick Perry.

Rick Perry has come out publicly in support of paying the man compensation, but the governor apparently does not have any official say in the matter.

[Lucky]

Rick Perry has come out publicly in support of paying the man compensation, but the governor apparently does not have any official say in the matter.

Official or not, the Governor has tons of say in the matter. Though the Comptroller may be elected, he or she is within the executive branch of the government. Perry is the Chief Executive. Perry's control is not as direct as it would be were the Comptroller were appointed, but if Perry says the word, it gets done.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Official or not, the Governor has tons of say in the matter. Though the Comptroller may be elected, he or she is within the executive branch of the government. Perry is the Chief Executive. Perry's control is not as direct as it would be were the Comptroller were appointed, but if Perry says the word, it gets done.

The comptroller historically has been a position at odds with the governor, competing for political power in the state. I don't think Perry's leverage here has much to do with any authority from being governor. Rather it's that he can score political points against the comptroller by taking the high ground in the press.

[Clams]

As for wrongly convicted prisoners, Bhob is exactly right. The state sent him to prison, the state is liable. Some states have statutes which provide a specific amount of compensation for each year the person is incarcerated. Texas is this way. Texas is claiming the guy isn't technically entitled to the money.

Most cities with which I am familiar have either insurance or a risk pooling arrangement to deal with large verdicts or settlements against them. Some states have a reserve. There's no reason they couldn't fund it using some other mechanism, depending upon what their state law says.

If there was a trial and a conviction, why is the state liable? Let's play devil's advocate. For anyone (incl the state of fed govt) to be liable for damages, doesn't there have to be "fault"? What if all the evidence at trial pointed to this man as the murderer? In other words, it looks like the guy did it, the DA's office rightfully pursued the case, and the jury, after hearing the evidence, convicted the man of murder, and then years later it is learned either by confession or other exculpatory evidence, that someone else committed the crime. No withholding or tampering of evidence, no malice or intent against the person, etc. Just an honest - albeit very serious - mistake. (I'm not sure if this is totally on point, but think Harrison Ford's situation in The Fugitive). In such a case, why would the state or federal government have to pay damages to this person?