December 29, 2006
Carey v. Musladin, a quick analysis ::
legal — tagged crime, due process, habeas corpus, legal and SCOTUS
3:00 pm
I must be feeling better because I find I have a reinvigorated interest in the activities of the Supreme Court. I note particularly the Court’s opinion in Carey v. Musladin, which presented the question of whether the California courts improperly upheld the conviction of a criminal defendant after the victim’s family members were allowed to wear buttons displaying photographs of the victim during the trial. The question was couched within the defendant’s subsequent federal habeas petition, and the Court’s majority opinion stuck to the narrow, technical question of whether upholding the conviction in spite of the buttons was “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law. In a brief opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court quickly answered the question in the negative. But Justice Souter, concurring in the judgment, took a different approach in which he dealt with the question in a more substantive manner:
[O]ne could not seriously deny that allowing spectators at a criminal trial to wear visible buttons with the victim’s photo can raise a risk of improper considerations. The display is no part of the evidence going to guilt or innocence, and the buttons are at once an appeal for sympathy for the victim (and perhaps for those who wear the buttons) and a call for some response from those who see them. On the jurors’ part, that expected response could well seem to be a verdict of guilty, and a sympathetic urge to assuage the grief or rage of survivors with a conviction would be the paradigm of improper consideration.
It’s interesting to compare the majority opinion with Souter’s concurrence. In an effort to build consensus and answer only a narrow, technical question, the majority seems to foreclose the possibility that private actors in a court room could ever do something that would prejudice a criminal defendant during trial. By contrast, Souter’s concurrence does a good job of being just as narrow of an opinion, but leaving open the possibility of prejudice against the defendant based on a different set of facts.
Update: Tony Mauro has an interesting article about Chief Justice Roberts that shades the oddly narrow and technical nature of the Court’s Carey opinion. I noted particularly this paragraph:
Nearly everywhere he goes, Roberts speaks of his desire to preside over a more cohesive and unanimous Court. But with resignation in his voice, he notes that he cannot achieve that goal without active help from his colleagues.
Given Roberts’ intelligence and his overwhelmingly technical mind, as well as this priority he seems to be sticking to, it could be that this opinion simply a product of the type of influence he has over the Court.
September 25, 2006
The large abuses of tiny courts ::
legal — tagged crime, due process, legal, new york and social conscience
7:56 am
The New York Times has an interesting piece on the small, rather unceremonious courts of limited jurisdiction in New York State and the types of abuses that go on there. Since these courts lack the high profile of general jurisdiction courts and often have people substantially less qualified presiding over them, they do not get the same level of attention as the Supreme Court of New York. The article, noting first that “[n]early three-quarters of the judges are not lawyers…have scant grasp of the most basic legal principles, [and] never got through high school,” goes on to explain why the underqualified nature of these judges is such a Big Deal:
But serious things happen in these little rooms all over New York State. People have been sent to jail without a guilty plea or a trial, or tossed from their homes without a proper proceeding. In violation of the law, defendants have been refused lawyers, or sentenced to weeks in jail because they cannot pay a fine. Frightened women have been denied protection from abuse.
Given the lack of attention that these courts garner (who really cares how your challenge to that traffic ticket was resolved?) what springs to mind for me is the dialogue between Holmes and Watson in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches, in which Holmes notes that it is places isolated from greater society and hidden from public scrutiny that are ripest for abuses and crime:
But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser.
