Michael Bowe

Free Michael

When people think of the word "justice," they think of fairness. And so, when most people think of the American justice system, they believe that built into that system is fundamental procedural fairness.

But there are traps set for people who have been convicted and imprisoned for federal crimes who are trying to use a retroactive change in the law to free themselves from what the law says is now an illegal prison sentence. That is, when the law changes and demands that the prisoner be freed, in many cases, in a cruel twist, the system is designed to block that pathway to freedom. 

Michael Bowe's case brings to life this particular brand of injustice.

Bowe was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison. Here's the short version.

After a significant 2019 Supreme Court case, Davis, Bowe argued that part of his sentence was illegal. According to the 11th circuit, he was wrong.  So he lost.  

Then in 2022 in a separate Supreme Court case, Bowe finally got a ruling that applied to him.  And it was retroactive.

Basically, because of the new Supreme Court case, a large part of the sentence Bowe is serving, is now illegal.  Given the amount of time he's already served, he should be released immediately. Naturally, he wanted to file a new motion so he could take advantage of the new ruling.

And it turns out, Michael was right all along. As just explained, the 11th circuit initially denied him permission to file a 2255 motion after Davis because the 11th circuit had precedent saying that attempted Hobbs Act robbery still qualified as a crime of violence under the still-valid elements clause. But the Supreme Court later overruled that precedent in Taylor—meaning that Bowe was correct to seek relief after Davis, and the 11th was wrong to deny him back in 2019. So, after Taylor, Bowe went back to the 11th. And, remarkably, the 11th denied him again for the sole reason that it had previously denied him the first time, even though we now know that ruling was wrong!

Not so fast. 

Here's the snag. Before the district court can free Bowe, he must first file for relief in the district court. But before he can do that, he must get permission from the appellate court, a technical step that must be taken. 

Bowe was blindsided—the appellate court denied permission. He was stuck. The law changed. It applied to him. And, as a result, he should have walked free. The appellate court, however, would not allow him to file the motion. As such, the district court could not free him. 

To be clear, the appellate court did not deny the argument on its merits; it blocked his opportunity to file the argument in the district court so he could have the judge correct the now illegal sentence.

Why? Because the appellate court held that Bowe had already argued the same argument in a previous motion. But that's factually inaccurate.

For obvious reasons, prisoners are not allowed to just keep filing the same old losing argument, again and again. A prisoner can file a legal argument, via a 2255 motion, one time; and if he loses, it's over. The court has spoken. However, if there's a new case that opens a new door…well, that's different. It's a new set of circumstances. 

Although the prisoner was wrong in his first motion, because of a new intervening Supreme Court case, his new argument is right. 

As already stated, when Bowe filed the first time, the new Supreme Court case didn't exist. After the ruling in the new Supreme Court case, a new door was open. 

Incrediby, in denying Bowe permission to file a motion so the district court judge could free him, the appellate court ignored this glaring fact.

Under this model, the word "justice," as it relates to the federal justice system, is synonymous with imprisoning someone for crimes, but it doesn't apply to releasing someone when the law demands it.

Justice is justice. It is justice when a man commits crimes and is imprisoned, and it is likewise justice when that same man is released from prison because the law says his prison sentence is illegal.

Keeping a person caged, even though everyone agrees that an intervening U.S. Supreme Court case renders a chunk of his sentence illegal, is not justice. In this light, the justice system is a misnomer. Instead, it should be called the American system of imprisonment, not the American system of justice.

How would you feel if you were scooped up by police officers tonight for some old law that has since been discarded? What if people selling alcohol were rounded up and tossed in prison?

Prohibition ended in 1933.  It would make no sense to cage people under an old, outdated law. 

That would be absurd—the outrage! 

Whether the law was discarded in 1933 or a few years ago, it no longer exists.  

Yet, as it stands, because of an irrational ruling, Bowe must sit in prison for a decade even though the conviction and sentence are now illegal.

Yeah…that makes sense.

For a more detailed and comprehensive breakdown of the case, please visit: https://lisa-legalinfo.com/2024/02/23/supreme-court-denies-a-habeas-corpus-but-with-an-interesting-twist-update-for-february-23-2024/