(NY Times, registration required) Justices Stress Inmate's Right to Press Appeal: The Supreme Court ordered a new hearing for a Texas death row inmate today in a surprisingly broad 8-to-1 decision that warned the federal courts of appeals against shutting the door prematurely on state prisoners who seek to present constitutional challenges to their convictions or sentences.
My goodness. How very interesting. And how very unexpected. This case had failed every appeal up the line until now; apparently, it had failed every appeal because the judges were collapsing the appealability issue into the merits of the case.
It will be interesting to see what happens now. This case will be sent back to the Fifth Circuit, which now MUST grant the certificate of appealability so that the case can be heard ... in the Fifth Circuit court which collapsed the merits of the case into the appealability issue in the first place. This would seem to indicate that the case's chances on the merits would not have a great chance of success ... except that, if this summary is accurate, the Court did exactly what they're accusing the lower courts of doing when they should not.
In an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Supreme Court sharply criticized both the Texas courts and the lower federal courts for ignoring strong evidence of racial bias in the selection of the nearly all-white jury that found a black Texas man, Thomas Miller-El, guilty of murder 17 years ago. Without resolving the merits of Mr. Miller-El's discrimination case, the majority said today that in appealing the denial of his habeas corpus petition, he had presented evidence of bias substantial enough to entitle him to a hearing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit misapplied both the facts and the law in refusing to permit the appeal, the justices said.
It does seem a somewhat insoluble conundrum. How do you look at the merits of a case to say, "Yes, this is a substantial enough issue to allow you to continue to appeal" without either implicitly or explicitly commenting on the chances of success of the case?
It's also fascinating that even Scalia, hardliner that he is, decided that the case had been incorrectly decided by the lower courts, whereas Thomas broke sharply. That's a tandem that almost never breaks stride; for it to happen on an 8-1 split is pretty much unheard of.
Posted by iain at February 26, 2003 10:37 AMComments
