Two SCOTUS cases kick off this edition, as well as follow-up on Daryl Atkins of Atkins v. Virginia fame.
The first of the two SCOTUS case is Montejo v. Louisiana. Faegre & Benson’s Supreme Court Update interprets Montejo thusly:
in Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), the Supreme Court held that, once a criminal defendant has requested counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding, the police are forbidden to initiate any interrogation of the defendant. This case involved an attempted invocation of that rule.. . . The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. It first held that the state court’s attempted limitation of Jackson, based on a supposed distinction between a defendant’s affirmative “assertion” of his or her right to counsel and the appointment of counsel without a request, either would be unworkable in practice or would result in arbitrarily different results depending on whether state law requires counsel to be requested before one will be appointed. Instead, the Court decided to abandon the Jackson rule entirely. It suggested that the rule had originally been intended to protect defendants against being badgered into waiving their previously asserted right to the assistance of counsel at all “critical” stages of criminal proceedings, and that there was no basis for extending it, as Montejo argued here, to preclude all waivers of those rights whether or not they had been improperly obtained. The Court noted that other decisions provide ample protection against badgering defendants to waive their rights, and principles of stare decisis do not require retention of Jackson. The case was remanded to state court to give Montejo the opportunity to argue for exclusion of the inculpatory letter based on the other decisions that, according to the Court, made Jackson superfluous.
In the other SCOTUS case, Bobby v. Bies, the Court likewise reversed. The State courts had determined, pre-Atkins, that Bies was, for purposes of mitigation, mentally retarded. Bies post-Atkins argued successfully to the Sixth Circuit that double jeopardy barred his execution due to his retardation. The Court held that determinations of Bies mental capacity at mitigation were not necessary to the ultimate imposition of the death penalty in the pre-Atkins adjudication. The Court reasoned that prosecutors, pre-Atkins, had little incentive to contest retardation evidence since they already had their death sentence. Post-Atkins, however, the State’s incentive to contest Bies’ mental capacity greatly changed and to give a preclusive effect to the prior determination would be unfair to the State. Giving preclusive effect to the MR finding, as the Sixth Circuit did on federal habeas corpus, without a post-Atkins state court adjudication was improper; the Ohio state courts should have the first chance to adjudicate how they want to deal with MR findings.
Turning to the lower courts, Daryl Atkins’ life sentence is finally final. Although technically the Virginia Supreme Court in In re: Commonwealth of Virginia merely held that “mandamus cannot be used to collaterally attack or vacate a final judgment entered upon the conclusion of a criminal proceeding, and prohibition cannot be used to vacate or “undo” that final judgment because that writ does not lie to undo acts already done” the reasons are far from technical. Before Mr. Atkins’ second penalty-phase retrial new evidence surfaced. Specifically, attorneys for his co-defendant, William Jones, came forward with information that Jones’ version of what transpired given in preparation of Mr. Atkins original trial didn’t match the physical evidence in the case. The Commonwealth’s Attorney and her assistant, in the presence of Jones’ counsel, turned off a tape recording of the interview and then coached Jones on his testimony. Upon learning of the of the coaching (or arguably subornation of perjury) Mr. Atkins’ counsel moved for a life verdict in the trial court which it subsequently did. The Virginia Supreme Court in In re: Commonwealth of Virginia effectively affirmed the trial court’s decision to impose a life verdict.
The Ninth Circuit in Roger Mark Scott v. Schriro remands after a thorough examination of procedural default versus exhaustion. The panel holds that petitioner exhausted his IAC claims and had not defaulted them as the district court had found. The IAC claims involved failure to present mitigating evidence of brain damage, voluntariness of a confession, and sentencing mitigation. In light of the panel’s holding it remanded for further proceedings on the exhausted claims.
In an unsigned order the Eighth Circuit has stayed the execution of Reginald Clemons which Missouri had scheduled for later this month apparently to permit a previously filed lethal injection appeal to continue in the normal course. In Tennessee, last Wednesday’s execution date of James A. Dellinger was stayed for what appears to be a desire to reinstate his “appeals.”
In lethal injection news, Death Watch has this highly effective post on the state of lethal injection litigation in North Carolina. Nebraska’s Governor signed in late May a law replacing electrocution with lethal injection and already a motion challenging the new lethal injection protocol has been filed. Arguments wrapped up Tuesday in a civil trial challenging Washington’s lethal injection system.
Elsewhere, as expected, Conn.’s governor has vetoed that state’s death penalty repeal bill. Texas has killed Terry Hankin to mark the 200th execution under Gov. Rick Perry. The Cook County public defender’s share of a fund used to cover expenses to represent people in death-penalty cases is exhausted and pds office is in the process of filing multiple motions asking judges to either bar the state from seeking death or allow public defenders to withdraw.
I suspect I am not alone in wanting to know more about Judge Sotomayor .The SCOTUSBlog has “Judge Sotomayor’s completed Senate Judiciary questionnaire [ ] available for download here. The transcript of her confirmation hearing for the Second Circuit is available here and her Judiciary questionnaire from that hearing is available in two parts: here and here. The transcript of her confirmation hearing for the Southern District of New York is available here and her Judiciary questionnaire from that hearing is available in two parts: here and here.”
As always thanks for reading. As those who know me (if even only through social networking sites) know, I closed on a house last week and have been busy moving in, etc., thanks for bearing with us as things have been hectic here the last few months. Now that everything is settling down again I’m hoping to start longer editions & more frequent updates at the daily blog now that we aren’t living in boxes. – k
