The case I chose is Stogner v. California (2003), though not specifically outlined in the text (used the text description to find the case.
Stogner involves the state of California enacting a new law that allows for the prosecution of serious sexual abuse of minors after the statute of limitations had run out. The new law set guidelines for the revived prosecution in that 1) a victim has reported an allegation of abuse to the police, (2) "there is independent evidence that clearly and convincingly corroborates the victim's allegation," and (3) the prosecution is begun within one year of the victim's report (Stogner v. California, 2003, p. 609).
In 1998, the defendant, Marion Stogner, was prosecuted and convicted of sexually abusing his…show more content… Supreme Court concluded that the application of the extended statute of limitations to Stogner violated the U. S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, which prevents governments from enacting statutes with “manifestly unjust and oppressive” retroactive effects (States (Art. I, §10, cl. 1)). Reviving prosecutions after the statute of limitations has expired deprives the defendant of fair warning, which might have led him to preserve exculpatory evidence and, by allowing legislatures to pick and choose when to act retroactively, risks both arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation and erosion of the separation of powers. Language in the Court’s decision suggests that the outcome would have been different if the shorter statute of limitations had not expired when the extended period superseded it (Price-Livingston, 2003).
The Court also found the California law violated the Ex Post Facto Clause as set forth in the criteria in Calder v. Bull (3 Dall. 386 (1798)). The two categories that California’s law met were 1) laws that aggravate a crime, or make them greater than they were when committed and 2) laws that alter the legal rules of evidence and receive less, or different, testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence in order to convict the defendant (Stogner v. California,…show more content… The Court opined that the law threatened the kinds of harm that the Clause seeks to avoid, for the Clause protects liberty by preventing governments from enacting statutes with "manifestly unjust and oppressive" retroactive effects (Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 391). And furthermore, the law falls literally within the categorical descriptions of ex post facto laws that Justice Chase set forth more than 200 years ago in Calder v. Bull, which this Court has recognized as an authoritative account of the Clause's scope (Stogner v. California,2013, p. 607).
References:
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 386 386 (1798). Retreived March 30, 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/386/
Price-Livingston, S. (2003, July 18). U. S. SUPREME COURT DECISION STRIKING RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from The Office of Legislative Research - State of Connecticut website: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0512.htmv
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003). Retrieved March 30, 2017, from
