Man jailed after clerical error kept him free for 13 years (1 Viewer)

[SacramentoBob]

Thought this was an Onion headline when I first read it.

Link

A convicted criminal who spent 13 years as a free man because of a clerical error now faces the same amount of time in jail — after authorities discovered their boneheaded mistake more than a ­decade later.

Missouri officials who stumbled upon the paperwork bungle — which showed felon Cornealious “Mike” Anderson as an inmate in state prison even though he never showed up there — want to undo the snafu by throwing the now-upstanding businessman behind bars for the next 13 years.

The case has left legal experts baffled and Anderson’s family and friends struggling to understand the sordid past of the armed robber, who by all accounts is a changed man.

“Even the victim himself went on record and said, ‘I don’t think this guy should be in jail,’ ” said Anderson’s lawyer, Patrick Megaro.

 

[NCCommish]

Seems like he turned his life around. Maybe put him on probation for 13 years or something if you must. Jailing him doesn't seem to accomplish very much at this point.

 

[DiStefano]

Seems like he turned his life around. Maybe put him on probation for 13 years or something if you must. Jailing him doesn't seem to accomplish very much at this point.

Well, it would certainly stop him from being an upstanding citizen for the next 13 years. And then the prison system will claim they need more money because they are overcrowded.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

 

[NCCommish]

Seems like he turned his life around. Maybe put him on probation for 13 years or something if you must. Jailing him doesn't seem to accomplish very much at this point.

Well, it would certainly stop him from being an upstanding citizen for the next 13 years. And then the prison system will claim they need more money because they are overcrowded.

Maybe Missouri is one of those states where they have to have a certain number of inmates in jail at all times or they pay the private prison for empty beds.

 

[sbonomo]

wow....i wonder what his original sentence was?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

I don't support probation or anything either. The state messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the guy's sentence is served.

Edit: Apparently the guy has been in jail for the past nine months. I hope wins a nice lawsuit against the state of Missouri.

 

[NCCommish]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

I don't support probation or anything either. The state messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the guy's sentence is served.

Well I would be fine with no probation. But the state looks foolish now need to give them a face saving way out.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

I don't support probation or anything either. The state messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the guy's sentence is served.

Edit: Apparently the guy has been in jail for the past nine months. I hope wins a nice lawsuit against the state of Missouri.

Eh. I don't really think I'd say the state "screwed up." Is there a set time that they have to lock someone up after sentencing them? If so, he's scott free and his lawyer can simply bring this up at his hearing. I'm guessing there is not. I'd say there's enough blame to go around. He knew he was supposed to serve his sentence. While he never changed his name or actively hid, he didn't go to the state and say "hey you know I have a prison sentence to serve. Can we get that started please" either. If he's such an upstanding citizen at this point 13 years of probation shouldn't be an issue for him, and I'd think he'd gladly accept it instead of 13 years in prison.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Sometimes a guy is in jail for a crime he didn't commit. I guess it all works it self out in the long run.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

I don't support probation or anything either. The state messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the guy's sentence is served.

Edit: Apparently the guy has been in jail for the past nine months. I hope wins a nice lawsuit against the state of Missouri.

For what? Carrying out his sentence?

 

[TheIronSheik]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

I don't support probation or anything either. The state messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the guy's sentence is served.

Edit: Apparently the guy has been in jail for the past nine months. I hope wins a nice lawsuit against the state of Missouri.

Eh. I don't really think I'd say the state "screwed up." Is there a set time that they have to lock someone up after sentencing them? If so, he's scott free and his lawyer can simply bring this up at his hearing. I'm guessing there is not. I'd say there's enough blame to go around. He knew he was supposed to serve his sentence. While he never changed his name or actively hid, he didn't go to the state and say "hey you know I have a prison sentence to serve. Can we get that started please" either. If he's such an upstanding citizen at this point 13 years of probation shouldn't be an issue for him, and I'd think he'd gladly accept it instead of 13 years in prison.

Exactly. Not sure why people think he should get off scott free.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

I don't support probation or anything either. The state messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the guy's sentence is served.

Edit: Apparently the guy has been in jail for the past nine months. I hope wins a nice lawsuit against the state of Missouri.

Eh. I don't really think I'd say the state "screwed up." Is there a set time that they have to lock someone up after sentencing them? If so, he's scott free and his lawyer can simply bring this up at his hearing. I'm guessing there is not. I'd say there's enough blame to go around. He knew he was supposed to serve his sentence. While he never changed his name or actively hid, he didn't go to the state and say "hey you know I have a prison sentence to serve. Can we get that started please" either. If he's such an upstanding citizen at this point 13 years of probation shouldn't be an issue for him, and I'd think he'd gladly accept it instead of 13 years in prison.

I don't think that's a reasonable standard. And he did actually file some paperwork in 2004 that allegedly made it clear that he had never started his sentence.

 

[Donsmith753]

This story was on This American Life recently.

Show entitled "This one thing"

 

[Insein]

Isn't there a statute of limitations? Bank error in your favor. They ####ed up. No going back now. If he was in prison for 13 years due to a clerical error, they certainly wouldn't be stepping up to reimburse him for it.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

BRB

 

[StrikeS2k]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

I don't support probation or anything either. The state messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the guy's sentence is served.

Edit: Apparently the guy has been in jail for the past nine months. I hope wins a nice lawsuit against the state of Missouri.

Eh. I don't really think I'd say the state "screwed up." Is there a set time that they have to lock someone up after sentencing them? If so, he's scott free and his lawyer can simply bring this up at his hearing. I'm guessing there is not. I'd say there's enough blame to go around. He knew he was supposed to serve his sentence. While he never changed his name or actively hid, he didn't go to the state and say "hey you know I have a prison sentence to serve. Can we get that started please" either. If he's such an upstanding citizen at this point 13 years of probation shouldn't be an issue for him, and I'd think he'd gladly accept it instead of 13 years in prison.

I don't think that's a reasonable standard. And he did actually file some paperwork in 2004 that allegedly made it clear that he had never started his sentence.

From what I read he filed an appeal. He didn't ask to start serving his sentence. Look, there's no doubt the state dropped the ball. But he could have easily gone back and said "Hey, I have a sentence to serve. Either put me in prison or grant me a formal release." But he chose not to do that. Why do you suppose that is? So he shares some responsibility. As NCCommish said I'd be ok without probation as well but it seems a fair compromise to me. I mean, dude did rob someone at gunpoint.

 

[Rove!]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

I don't support probation or anything either. The state messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the guy's sentence is served.

Edit: Apparently the guy has been in jail for the past nine months. I hope wins a nice lawsuit against the state of Missouri.

Eh. I don't really think I'd say the state "screwed up." Is there a set time that they have to lock someone up after sentencing them? If so, he's scott free and his lawyer can simply bring this up at his hearing. I'm guessing there is not. I'd say there's enough blame to go around. He knew he was supposed to serve his sentence. While he never changed his name or actively hid, he didn't go to the state and say "hey you know I have a prison sentence to serve. Can we get that started please" either. If he's such an upstanding citizen at this point 13 years of probation shouldn't be an issue for him, and I'd think he'd gladly accept it instead of 13 years in prison.

I don't think that's a reasonable standard. And he did actually file some paperwork in 2004 that allegedly made it clear that he had never started his sentence.

From what I read he filed an appeal. He didn't ask to start serving his sentence. Look, there's no doubt the state dropped the ball. But he could have easily gone back and said "Hey, I have a sentence to serve. Either put me in prison or grant me a formal release." But he chose not to do that. Why do you suppose that is? So he shares some responsibility. As NCCommish said I'd be ok without probation as well but it seems a fair compromise to me. I mean, dude did rob someone at gunpoint.

BB gun from what I here

I think probation; maybe some jail time/community service that doesn't interfere with his ability to earn an honest living would be appropriate...

 

[StrikeS2k]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

I don't support probation or anything either. The state messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the guy's sentence is served.

Edit: Apparently the guy has been in jail for the past nine months. I hope wins a nice lawsuit against the state of Missouri.

Eh. I don't really think I'd say the state "screwed up." Is there a set time that they have to lock someone up after sentencing them? If so, he's scott free and his lawyer can simply bring this up at his hearing. I'm guessing there is not. I'd say there's enough blame to go around. He knew he was supposed to serve his sentence. While he never changed his name or actively hid, he didn't go to the state and say "hey you know I have a prison sentence to serve. Can we get that started please" either. If he's such an upstanding citizen at this point 13 years of probation shouldn't be an issue for him, and I'd think he'd gladly accept it instead of 13 years in prison.

I don't think that's a reasonable standard. And he did actually file some paperwork in 2004 that allegedly made it clear that he had never started his sentence.

From what I read he filed an appeal. He didn't ask to start serving his sentence. Look, there's no doubt the state dropped the ball. But he could have easily gone back and said "Hey, I have a sentence to serve. Either put me in prison or grant me a formal release." But he chose not to do that. Why do you suppose that is? So he shares some responsibility. As NCCommish said I'd be ok without probation as well but it seems a fair compromise to me. I mean, dude did rob someone at gunpoint.

BB gun from what I here

I think probation; maybe some jail time/community service that doesn't interfere with his ability to earn an honest living would be appropriate...

Sure. But he's already been in jail for the last nine months, and IIRC he served some time after being convicted before his family raised the cash to bail him out and appeal. So I think he's served more than enough time considering how much of a model citizen he's been. I don't want to destroy his life. He's apparently built up a nice business, goes to church, and is raising a family. But if we feel the need to hold him accountable let's put him on probation. Seems very fair to me.

 

[Soulfly3]

And Bridgewater's stock dropped just a little more...

 

[NCCommish]

It would be idiotic and "unjust" to put this man in jail. I agree with NCCommish that a probation term of similar length to his original prison sentence is a fair outcome. I hope common sense prevails here.

I don't support probation or anything either. The state messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the guy's sentence is served.

Edit: Apparently the guy has been in jail for the past nine months. I hope wins a nice lawsuit against the state of Missouri.

Eh. I don't really think I'd say the state "screwed up." Is there a set time that they have to lock someone up after sentencing them? If so, he's scott free and his lawyer can simply bring this up at his hearing. I'm guessing there is not. I'd say there's enough blame to go around. He knew he was supposed to serve his sentence. While he never changed his name or actively hid, he didn't go to the state and say "hey you know I have a prison sentence to serve. Can we get that started please" either. If he's such an upstanding citizen at this point 13 years of probation shouldn't be an issue for him, and I'd think he'd gladly accept it instead of 13 years in prison.

I don't think that's a reasonable standard. And he did actually file some paperwork in 2004 that allegedly made it clear that he had never started his sentence.

From what I read he filed an appeal. He didn't ask to start serving his sentence. Look, there's no doubt the state dropped the ball. But he could have easily gone back and said "Hey, I have a sentence to serve. Either put me in prison or grant me a formal release." But he chose not to do that. Why do you suppose that is? So he shares some responsibility. As NCCommish said I'd be ok without probation as well but it seems a fair compromise to me. I mean, dude did rob someone at gunpoint.

They did say the appeal made it clear he wasn't serving his sentence.

 

[Jobber]

It sounds like the guy who he was convicted of robbing thinks he should not serve time. Can't he just recant and say "I think I may have been mistaken 13 years ago. That's not the guy".

 

[SacramentoBob]

This is a nice example to use the next time we are arguing over trying children as adults and someone says "they are just thugs who won't amount to anything". I guess you can amount to something if you don't go to jail.

 

[SacramentoBob]

"amount to anything" is a strange sounding idiom when you think about it.

 

[lod01]

I'm sure there is a murderer that we can set free and give this guy his bunk. Only in the USA.

 

[Rove!]

This is a nice example to use the next time we are arguing over trying children as adults and someone says "they are just thugs who won't amount to anything". I guess you can amount to something if you don't go to jail.

how do we know who will re-offend and who will learn from a mistake and live a good life?

 

[Zow]

It sounds like the guy who he was convicted of robbing thinks he should not serve time. Can't he just recant and say "I think I may have been mistaken 13 years ago. That's not the guy".

No.

 

[NCCommish]

It sounds like the guy who he was convicted of robbing thinks he should not serve time. Can't he just recant and say "I think I may have been mistaken 13 years ago. That's not the guy".

No.

Well of course he can. People do it all the time. Now how much if anything that would change I don't know.

 

[Zow]

It sounds like the guy who he was convicted of robbing thinks he should not serve time. Can't he just recant and say "I think I may have been mistaken 13 years ago. That's not the guy".

No.

Well of course he can. People do it all the time. Now how much if anything that would change I don't know.

I do know. And it very likely wouldn't change a thing, depending on the original disposition of the defendant's case. Hence my initial "No" answer, Mr. Literal.

 

[Spanky267]

I'm curious how he passed his background check to coach youth football if he was supposed to be an incarcerated felon. I think the guy should be released with time served and at most a light probation sentence. It appears that his run in with the law changed the course of his life. Why ruin it now over a clerical error.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Sometimes a guy is in jail for a crime he didn't commit. I guess it all works it self out in the long run.

T Bell likes this

Thanks, T Bell, for my 700th like.

 

[Zow]

I'm curious how he passed his background check to coach youth football if he was supposed to be an incarcerated felon. I think the guy should be released with time served and at most a light probation sentence. It appears that his run in with the law changed the course of his life. Why ruin it now over a clerical error.

The legal theory answer: to deter future defendants from defying court-ordered sentences; to obtain societal retribution for his violent crime.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I'm curious how he passed his background check to coach youth football if he was supposed to be an incarcerated felon. I think the guy should be released with time served and at most a light probation sentence. It appears that his run in with the law changed the course of his life. Why ruin it now over a clerical error.

The legal theory answer: to deter future defendants from defying court-ordered sentences; to obtain societal retribution for his violent crime.

And THAT is why people hate lawyers.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'm curious how he passed his background check to coach youth football if he was supposed to be an incarcerated felon. I think the guy should be released with time served and at most a light probation sentence. It appears that his run in with the law changed the course of his life. Why ruin it now over a clerical error.

The legal theory answer: to deter future defendants from defying court-ordered sentences; to obtain societal retribution for his violent crime.

And THAT is why people hate lawyers.

This would actually be one of the reasons I like lawyers.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I'm curious how he passed his background check to coach youth football if he was supposed to be an incarcerated felon. I think the guy should be released with time served and at most a light probation sentence. It appears that his run in with the law changed the course of his life. Why ruin it now over a clerical error.

The legal theory answer: to deter future defendants from defying court-ordered sentences; to obtain societal retribution for his violent crime.

And THAT is why people hate lawyers.

This would actually be one of the reasons I like lawyers.

He didn't defy a court ordered sentence. And I don't see the benefit to society in trying to obtain retribution for a violent crime committed 14 years ago, especially given the past 13 year history for the defendant. Lastly, a defense attorney would note that the justice system isn't supposed to be about retribution. At least that's what Death Penalty lawyers always say on their 12th appeal go round. At some point we should allow common sense to come in to play in situations such as this.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'm curious how he passed his background check to coach youth football if he was supposed to be an incarcerated felon. I think the guy should be released with time served and at most a light probation sentence. It appears that his run in with the law changed the course of his life. Why ruin it now over a clerical error.

The legal theory answer: to deter future defendants from defying court-ordered sentences; to obtain societal retribution for his violent crime.

And THAT is why people hate lawyers.

This would actually be one of the reasons I like lawyers.

He didn't defy a court ordered sentence. And I don't see the benefit to society in trying to obtain retribution for a violent crime committed 14 years ago, especially given the past 13 year history for the defendant. Lastly, a defense attorney would note that the justice system isn't supposed to be about retribution. At least that's what Death Penalty lawyers always say on their 12th appeal go round. At some point we should allow common sense to come in to play in situations such as this.

You do the crime, you pay your time. Just because you got around the system for 13 years doesn't mean you still don't have to do your time.

 

[FDAS]

I'm curious how he passed his background check to coach youth football if he was supposed to be an incarcerated felon. I think the guy should be released with time served and at most a light probation sentence. It appears that his run in with the law changed the course of his life. Why ruin it now over a clerical error.

The legal theory answer: to deter future defendants from defying court-ordered sentences; to obtain societal retribution for his violent crime.

And THAT is why people hate lawyers woz.

 

[Zow]

I'm curious how he passed his background check to coach youth football if he was supposed to be an incarcerated felon. I think the guy should be released with time served and at most a light probation sentence. It appears that his run in with the law changed the course of his life. Why ruin it now over a clerical error.

The legal theory answer: to deter future defendants from defying court-ordered sentences; to obtain societal retribution for his violent crime.

And THAT is why people hate lawyers.

 

[StrikeS2k]

For once, a court result based upon common sense:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-rules-13-year-sentence-man-never-served-complete-n97301

 

[SacramentoBob]

Kind of surprised at this outcome to be honest.

 

[Jobber]

That's fantastic. I'm glad this judge has some sense.

 

[DiStefano]

Good ending to this story.

 

[Abraham]

Anderson noted he had made no effort to conceal his identity while he was free.

So I wonder if he was aware he was supposed to go to jail and just waiting for them to pick him up.

 

[Josie Maran]

Good work, judge.

 

[SWC]

bam brohans that is how this is supposed to work i got goosebums reading that story this is a good judge and it is good to see common sense reward for a guy who lived it right as a grown up take that to the bank brohans

 

[Dr Oadi]

I am surprised hearing the good news. Gotta find out who this judge is cause he/she is one out of 100.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not sure why people think he should get off scott free.

Not scot-free. He's a convicted felon. He can't vote. He can't run for office. He's got to disclose his conviction to prospective employers if they ask, making it very difficult to get a wide range of jobs.

In any case, I'd let the conviction stand (obviously), but give him credit for time passed -- since it seems to have passed without any wrongdoing on his part.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

There has to be a lesson in here for all of us right?

 

[Fullback Fro]

There's not a day goes by I don't feel regret. Not because I'm in here, because you think I should. I look back on the way I was then: a young, stupid kid who committed that terrible crime. I want to talk to him. I want to try to talk some sense to him, tell him the way things are. But I can't. That kid's long gone, and this old man is all that's left. I got to live with that. Rehabilitated? It's just a bull#### word. So you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a ####.

 

[mquinnjr]

Not sure why people think he should get off scott free.

Not scot-free. He's a convicted felon. He can't vote. He can't run for office. He's got to disclose his conviction to prospective employers if they ask, making it very difficult to get a wide range of jobs.

In any case, I'd let the conviction stand (obviously), but give him credit for time passed -- since it seems to have passed without any wrongdoing on his part.

13 years was enough time to pay the debt he owed to society for his crime. Instead of costing society money in the penal system, he improved it.

Now, with that said, I am not advocating we stop sending people to prison for crimes that they have been convicted of committing. Rather, this is a one-off where society, as the judge ruled, has been repaid by the convict as a result of an error made by the court system giving the convict the opportunity to do so outside of the prison system.

Like MT said, this is on Anderson the rest of his life as far as the record of the crime that he committed staying on the books goes. But, just IMHO I'm with the judge in this one case.