Fiore, William v. White, Gregory, Prison warden (11/30/1999)

By: David Plazas, Medill News Service

Questions presented

(1) Did the state flout the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and evade federal habeas corpus relief for an incontestably innocent prisoner by claiming that the appellate decision constituted ""new law,"" when in fact the state did not and could not prove a key element of the crime at trial? (2) Should federal habeas relief be extended to protect federal constitutional rights when a state refuses to retroactively apply a case that based its decision on the already existing clear language of the statute?

Brief

William Fiore of Elizabeth Township, Penn., was convicted in the mid-1980s of operating a hazardous waste facility without a permit. While he, indeed, had a permit, Fiore and the facility's general manager, David Scarpone, altered an underground monitoring pipe to prevent the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources from detecting that hazardous wastes from the facility were seeping into a nearby water source.

The state argued that Fiore and Scarpone ""so altered the monitoring system and so significantly departed from the terms of the permit that the operation of the hazardous waste facility thereafter was an unpermitted operation.""

Both men were convicted of the crime. In 1987 Fiore was sentenced to up to 10 years in prison, 10 years probation, and fined $200,000.

Fiore's appeals in state court failed. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed Scarpone's conviction because he himself did not possess the permit. Although Fiore attempted to have the state Supreme Court decision in favor of Scarpone applied retroactively to himself, he was rebuffed in state court.

A federal magistrate granted Fiore habeas corpus relief, finding that the state high court did not apply the decision to reverse Scarpone's conviction equally to Fiore.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the magistrate's decision, however, determining that none of Fiore's constitutional rights had been violated.

""Although we might be inclined to grant relief if it were within our power, the limitations of our authority under the habeas corpus statute prevent us from doing so,"" a unanimous three-judge panel concluded on July 21, 1998.

The appeals court also found that no federal law requires the states to apply their laws retroactively. And because Pennsylvania has a statute against applying a law retroactively, the appeals court said the matter had to be handled by the state legislature and not by the federal courts.

""When a decision providing a new interpretation of a state criminal statute is not made fully retroactive, some defendants convicted prior to the new interpretation will almost always continue to suffer the consequences of a conviction based on conduct that would not constitute a crime under the new interpretation,"" the appeals court said.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on March 29, 1999 and limited review to the two questions presented above.

On Nov. 30, 1999, the Court issued a short unanimous opinion in which it reserved judgment, pending decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Writing for the Court, Justice Stephen Breyer certified the following question to the state's highest court: whether the interpretation of the statute set forth in Scarpone's case states the correct interpretation of Pennsylvania law at the date Fiores conviction became final, or whether it changed the interpretation then applicable.