Opinion ID: 2627850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Other courts' authority

Text: Lower courts have similarly taken the position that a pardon's power does not include the ability to abrogate a conviction's underlying guilt and have concluded that Garland's interpretation of the power was mere dictum. For instance, the New York Court of Appeals, in People v. Brophy , held that a pardon could wipe out the legal consequences flowing from an adjudication of guilt, but concluded that Garland's blotting out language was merely used as a metaphor to encourage support for a contentious decision in a tumultuous time in our nation's history, when passions roused by the rebellion still clouded the judgment of most citizens. 287 N.Y. 132, 38 N.E.2d 468, 470 (1941). In the case of In re Abrams, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed that the pardon discussion in Garland was dictum and concluded that a pardon did not blot out of existence the guilt associated with one who committed a crime. 689 A.2d 6, 18-19 (D.C. 1997) (citing Brophy, 38 N.E.2d at 470). To illustrate the implications of concluding that a pardon blots out the existence of guilt, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals offered the following analogy: Suppose that an alcoholic surgeon performs an operation while intoxicated. He botches the surgery. The patient dies. The surgeon is convicted of manslaughter and is sentenced to imprisonment. The President grants him a full and unconditional pardon. According to Abrams, the surgeon now has the right, as a result of the pardon, to continue to operate on other patients, without any interference from the medical licensing authorities. Id. at 10-11. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals concluded that this result would be altogether unacceptable and even irrational. Id. at 11. Although the pardon did away with the consequences of the conviction, it could not and did not require the court to close its eyes to the fact that Abrams did what he did. Id. at 7. In Dixon v. McMullen , the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas addressed whether a police academy applicant who had initially pleaded guilty to a case that was subsequently dismissed, and then received a gubernatorial pardon, could be eligible to serve as a police officer. 527 F.Supp. 711 (N.D.Tex.1981). Because the pardon was not issued on the basis of proof of innocence, the underlying guilt of the offense remained regardless of the pardon. Id. at 718. The Dixon court recognized that separation of powers was an issue and stated that [t]he undisputed legal effect of a pardon is to restore the civil rights to an ex-felon (suffrage, jury service, and the chance to seek public office). However, the Governor cannot overrule the judgment of a court of law. He has no appellate jurisdiction.... Regardless of the post-judgment procedural maneuvering, a final conviction does not disappear. A pardon implies guilt. Texas Courts may forgive, but they do not forget. The fact is not obliterated and there is no wash. ... Moreover, the granting of a pardon does not in any way indicate a defect in the process. It may remove some disabilities, but does not change the common-law principle that a conviction of an infamous offense is evidence of bad character. Id. at 717-18 (internal citations omitted). Florida imposes conditions on the eligibility of an individual seeking to expunge or seal her criminal record. The Supreme Court of Florida, in R.J.L. v. State, 887 So.2d 1268, 1270 (Fla.2004), concluded that the issuance of a pardon did not remove the historical fact that the individual was convicted. Id. at 1281. Additionally, the court reaffirmed that statutory requirements governing record expunction were not a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, in part because the court's authority was derived from a statutory grant of power. Id. at 1271 (citing with approval State v. D.H.W., 686 So.2d 1331, 1335 (Fla.1996)). Therefore, the court held that the legislature could require certain conditions be met before granting a petition for record expunction. Id. Having examined several cases and numerous other legal authorities, the R.J.L. court concluded that the effect of a pardon generally fell into two categories. Id. at 1278. In the first category, three courts had expressly adopted the reasoning of Garland and concluded that a pardon remov[ed] an adjudication of guilt so that the person is treated as if he never committed the crime and, therefore, a pardon would carry with it the attendant right of records expunction. Id. at 1278-79 (citing State v. Bergman, 558 N.E.2d 1111, 1114 (Ind.Ct.App.1990); State v. Cope, 111 Ohio App.3d 309, 676 N.E.2d 141, 143 (1996); Com. v. C.S., 517 Pa. 89, 534 A.2d 1053, 1054 (1987)). The second category of decisions involved cases which had held that although a pardon may remove punishment or restore civil rights, it did not remove the adjudication of guilt. Id. (citing People v. Thon, 319 Ill.App.3d 855, 254 Ill.Dec. 177, 746 N.E.2d 1225 (2001); Storcella v. State. Dept. of Treasury, 296 N.J.Super. 238, 686 A.2d 789, 792 (Ct.App.Div.1997); People v. Brophy, 287 N.Y. 132, 38 N.E.2d 468 (1941); Prichard v. Battle, 178 Va. 455, 17 S.E.2d 393, 397 (1941)). The R.J.L. court determined that only nine jurisdictions had directly addressed the issue of whether a pardon entitles an individual to record expunction and that a majority of those courts agreed, based principally on the reasoning that a pardon does not `blot out the existence of guilt,' id. at 1279 (quoting State v. Skinner, 632 A.2d 82, 87 (Del.1993)), that a pardoned individual is not entitled to record expunction. Id. (citing Skinner, 632 A.2d at 87; People v. Glisson, 69 Ill.2d 502, 14 Ill.Dec. 473, 372 N.E.2d 669, 671 (1978); Com. v. Vickey, 381 Mass. 762, 412 N.E.2d 877, 883 (1980); State v. Bachman, 675 S.W.2d 41, 52 (Mo.Ct.App. 1984); State v. Blanchard, 100 S.W.3d 226, 228 (Tenn.Crim.App.2002); State v. Aguirre, 73 Wash.App. 682, 871 P.2d 616, 620 (1994)). After considering the split of authorities that had confronted the issue, the Florida Supreme Court initially determined that, while a pardon removes punishment and disability and restores civil rights, expunction is not a civil right. R.J.L., 887 So.2d at 1280. The Florida Supreme Court then reasoned that a pardon's power to forgive the legal consequences of a criminal act did not confer innocence or remove the historical fact that the crime occurred. Id.