Supreme Court
-
Supreme Court and Juvenile Life Sentences
-
Five Supreme Court Cases to Watch
-
Obama's Strong Start on Judicial Diversity
The Constitutional Right Not to Be Framed
Published November 04, 2009 @ 09:11AM PT
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning on the limits of prosecutorial immunity, and in arguing for universal protection from lawsuits, the Iowa prosecutors involved didn't mince words. There is no freestanding constitutional "right not to be framed," they wrote.
The prosecutors in this case aren't alone in this stark -- and saddening -- view. They were joined by the Obama administration, 28 states and several prosecutors' professional organizations.
On one side of the case are two men who served 25 years in Iowa prisons for a murder evidence shows they likely didn't commit. On the other, prosecutors who allegedly fabricated evidence during the investigation of a murder and hid evidence of another suspect's guilt.
On Judicial Diversity, I'm with Clarence
Published October 29, 2009 @ 07:16AM PT
In a talk last week at the University of Alabama, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said he wants to see more diversity (geographic diversity, at least) on the Supreme Court, and presumably, on lower courts throughout the land.
"My goal is to have a court that is fair, and I think it's fair when we are fair in selecting people from all parts of the country, from all walks of life," Thomas said. He went on to say that he prefers to hire clerks from modest backgrounds.
It's an odd sentiment to hear from the mouth of an outspoken opponent of affirmative action.
The Right to (Competent) Counsel
Published October 18, 2009 @ 10:29AM PT
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week in the case of Jose Padilla, a legal U.S. resident originally from Honduras who was challenging a guilty plea in a drug case because his attorney incorrectly told him the guilty plea couldn't lead to deportation.
In oral arguments, the court's right-wingers immediately challenged Padilla's attorney on whether a decision in favor of Padilla might open what the sage Antonin Scalia called a "Pandora's box" of burdens on attorneys to make clients aware of every possible outcome of a conviction -- from child custody to driver's license. Padilla's advocate before the Supreme Court, Stephen Kinnaird, responded - correctly, I think -- that deportation is one of few ancillary punishments "so severe and so material in a high number of cases" that should qualify for special consideration. Also, it wasn't just that Padilla's original lawyer failed to advise him of the impact. Padilla asked, and the lawyer advised him incorrectly. He pled guilty based on false information.
This is a critical issue, because deportation adds an extra layer of punishment in many thousands of convictions each year, and the legal issues around this double-sentence have not been fully explored. An editorial yesterday in the LA Times agrees with Kinnaird:
The Troy Davis Fallout Continues
Published August 20, 2009 @ 03:41PM PT
The U.S. Supreme Court dropped a bombshell on Monday, and it was great news for Troy Davis. The court ruled 6-2 that a lower court must review new evidence in Davis' case before he can be executed. Davis' case had attracted attention from around the world, and millions celebrated the ruling. But it was the dissent that really turned some heads this week - and the conversation isn't over.
Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent (joined by Clarence Thomas) that the court had never found that executing an innocent person was unconstitutional. That's true - but why assert this position when you have the chance to articulate the obvious - that executing someone for a crime they didn't do is about as cruel and unusual as it gets?
Attorney and Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote at the Daily Beast that he was shocked that two Catholic justices could sign this dissent. He points to Scalia's famous 2002 article on the death penalty where he said that if his role as a justice ever forced him to do something immoral he would resign. That article asserted his belief that the death penalty isn't always immoral. But surely, Dershowitz says, executing an innocent man is. Tony, maybe it's time to go. I'm sure the President will come up with a replacement you'd appreciate.
Limiting DNA Testing and Denying Justice to Victims
Published July 22, 2009 @ 05:17AM PT
On June 18th, the United States Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 decision that prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing that might prove their innocence if they have been wrongfully convicted. That decision is one that will hurt crime victims in the U.S.
The five-justice majority found that this was a state issue instead of a federal one. In essence, state legislatures were doing enough already to remedy the problem of wrongful convictions. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. for the majority, said that to vote in favor of giving such rights to inmates would “short circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response.” It’s hard to agree with Chief Justice Roberts when 240 prisoners to date in the U.S. have been exonerated because of the use of DNA testing. Often the exoneration of these inmates has been due to the hard work of organizations like the Innocence Project and other organizations across the country. Without the use of DNA testing it is hard to think how these innocent prisoners would ever have seen the light of day.
But what concerns me as well is the number of crime victims who have been shafted yet again by the criminal justice system in the U.S. They once thought their case was solved only to find years later, sometimes two decades later, that the wrong man was convicted and sentenced. What a blow! According to the Innocence Project, out of the 240 exoneration cases, some 103 of those cases also identified the actual perpetrator through that same testing. DNA testing frees the innocent and catches real perpetrators. As a restorative justice advocate my question is : What on earth are we waiting for?
Sotomayor Sidesteps on Death Penalty and Sentencing
Published July 15, 2009 @ 11:09AM PT
The second day of questioning in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor is underway, and while there weren't any major fireworks in day one, there were some interesting moments for citizens concerned about the fate of the death penalty and over-sentencing in the United States.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat, and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina both targeted questions on the death penalty to Sotomayor. Durbin asked Sotomayor whether she agreed with former Justice Harold Blackmun that the death penalty has been unfairly administered in the United States.
She answered with caution:
The state of this question is different today than it was when Justice Blackmun came to his views. As a judge, I don't rule in an abstract. I rule in the context of a case that comes before me and a challenge to a situation and an application of the death penalty that arises in an individual case.
I've been and am very cautious about expressing personal views since I've been a judge. I find that people who listen to judges express their personal views on important questions that the courts are looking at, that they have a sense that the judge is coming into the process with a closed mind, that their personal views will somehow influence how they apply the law. It's one of the reasons why, since I've been a judge, I've always been very careful about not doing that. And I think my record speaks more loudly than I can.
Sotomayor on Crime
Published May 28, 2009 @ 07:02PM PT
The battle lines are being drawn on President Obama's historic appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. And while there is disagreement about some of her opinions, nobody can honestly say she's a radical pick. Her record on the bench is moderate on issues across the board. If confirmed, she will join eight other justices who previously served on a federal circuit court. A graduate of Yale Law School, she will keep alive the unhealthy statistic that eight of the nine justices went to either Harvard or Yale.
Even on criminal justice issues - she's right in the norm for judges who have risen to the top of the ranks. She was known as a tough prosecutor and most of the time on the federal bench she has decided against the defendant and for the state.
There are rays of hope for defendant rights in her record, however.
After the jump, I'll look specifically at two opinions she wrote on the Second Circuit. One of them is a little troubling, while the other is an inspiration.
