comparing varying reasons given by the government for decision not to prosecute different arrestees, some of which were indicative of innocence
How later courts described this case
- comparing varying reasons given by the government for decision not to prosecute different arrestees, some of which were indicative of innocence
- requiring “an official, and hence authoritative, explanation of the erroneous basis for the arrest”
- arrestee must show by clear and convincing evidence that “no crime had in fact been committed [by him] at the time of his arrest”
- including fingerprints and photographs as “record[s]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GALLAGHER, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I agree that an equitable relief should be fashioned for the petitioners in Hudson, Matthews and Mack. I reserve my opinion on Naughton until such time as there may be a record here on review after further proceedings. As to the first three appel-lees, Hudson, Matthews and Mack, I agree that we should undertake to “make them whole.” 1 The equitable remedy being invoked by the court may well be a suitable method to accomplish that purpose. I will await the result of the further proceedings, however, before I reach a final conclusion. I am assuming that in the process a searching review will be made by counsel of the experience gathered by the many states which utilize this and similar remedies. 2
. If I read the majority opinion correctly, appel-lee Jones has been written out of the case as not being entitled to relief.
. See, e. g., United States v. Hudson, D.C.Super.Ct. (Cr. No. 49590-74, Feb. 19, 1975, Memorandum Opinion at 24 n. 33), 103 Wash.D.L.Rptr. 377 (Feb. 28, 1975). In that footnote, reference is made to a summary of pertinent state laws prepared by the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service. That summary is readily available.