failed to state a claim due to its incorrectly naming the legal theory entitling the plaintiff to relief). The second line of precedent' holds that post-deprivation process is never enough if the liberty deprivation results from a criminal conviction. The Due Process Clause’s central command is that criminal defendants must receive fair trials. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (“[U]nder the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not bé punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance' with due prócéss of law.”). Notwithstanding the Parratt-Hudson doctrine, that is' true even if the trial is made unfair by the isolated and unauthorized act of a state employee. See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 905, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 138 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Albright, 510 U.S. at 281, 114 S.Ct. 807
holding that a conviction would violate due process if the judge disfavored the defendant in retaliation for the defendants refusal to pay a bribe holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof and that such a disposition does not violate the due process clause holding that even though the offense was not of a sexual nature requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender following his conviction for false imprisonment of a minor was rationally related to the government interest in protecting the public and did not violate the defendants right to due process or equal protection under the law holding that the defendants could not be held in contempt for failure to pay more than the fee cap amount because the court cannot order the djefendants to violate an act of congress to pay the total award