Jacob Chansley Was Sought Out -- And Then Sold Out -- By A Bastardization of the Criminal Justice System

"Due Process" Is Among the Most Inspired Phrases Adopted by the Founders -- As the Injustice Done to Jacob Chansley Demonstrates: What Process Was Due?

“Well, he did it so what’s the big deal?”

This kind of rationalization for short-cutting the procedural safeguards guaranteed defendants in criminal cases by the Bill of Rights — hence the name — is part of the corrosion that is destroying faith in the criminal justice system.

On April 27, 2023, I filed on Jake’s behalf a “Motion to Vacate, Correct, or Set Aside” his sentence under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. This is the procedural vehicle for re-opening a criminal case that is already closed. When a case is closed, the District Court Judge lacks jurisdiction to enter any more orders in connection with that case. He only regains that jurisdiction by “vacating” the “sentence”, as that is the final order that closed the case. Setting aside the final order causes the file to be reopened, and the Judge can then entertain further requests for relief.

So the first step in the process is to convince the Court there is a valid reason in the history of the case to warrant reopening it in order to determine whether an error was made that calls into question the legality of the outcome in some material respect. Generally, the error must be of sufficient magnitude that the outcome of the case would have been different had the error not occurred. Substantive violations of a defendant’s right to “due process” — when prejudice likely resulted — is generally that kind of error. Violations of due process can include the conduct of the government or the failure of defense counsel to be “effective” as that term has been defined by the Courts.

Sometimes a denial of “due process” involves both.

The Court had the option under the statute to deny the motion without requiring the Government to respond to the allegations. Sometimes the Court might conclude on the face of the motion that — even if the allegations are true — there is an insufficient basis to conclude that any relief would be appropriate.

In other instances the Court might conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the claims raised with regard to a constitutional violation, so there is not point in allowing the motion to proceed further by requiring the Government to respond.

But last week the Court ordered the Government to respond to the motion I filed, declining to deny the motion outright. I’ve been told by attorneys who practice in Washington D.C. regularly that the judges in this District do not enter such orders in under a week as happened in response to my motion. It is more typical for the judges to take more time to study the allegations raised by the motion, particularly since the vast majority of such motions are denied without ordering a response by the Government. To have the order directing the Government to respond come down only 5 days after the motion was filed is an extraordinary happening.

I look upon it as a bit of a victory right at the start. But now I need to be prepared to “Put up or shut up” because I expect the Government to come out guns blazing.