About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Thursday, June 24, 2004

Supremes' Criminal Justice Rulings: Mixed Bag

Edward Lazarus discusses a troubling application of a Supreme Court ruling on suspicious exclusion of black jurors, sharing concerns I voiced a few months ago upon reading the lower court opinion.


The Supreme Court handed down various criminal justice decisions handed down by the Supreme Court today. The cases concern such matters as factfinding by juries, application of a controversial Rehnquist ruling concerning retroactive application of "new rules," and the death penalty. They genearlly continue the recent trend of deciding matters narrowly, showing a respect for certain libertarian themes, but in various cases ignoring them. [This case, which is not directly mentioned below, follows the trend.]

SCHRIRO V. SUMMERLIN, for instance, refused to retroactively apply a recent rule holding that if the death penalty (the rule, strictly upheld today over strident dissents, also applies to general crimes) depends on finding of certain facts [such as "heinous" crimes], a jury (not a judge) must do the factfinding pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Relying on a controversial [as suggested by the 5-4 split on its application in another case handed down today] Rehnquist Court ruling that narrowed the range of application of "new rules" on pending cases, it held it is debatable that judicial factfinding seriously diminishes accuracy.

The opinion was 5-4, and the dissent clearly shows that in this context (accurately determining if death is deserved, not usual factfinding) the opposite is true. 110 people on death row were affected by the opinion. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, but it wasn't particularly snarky.

The opinion did start with a blunt account of the facts and comment on the "protracted" nature of the appeals. The dissent did not provide a balancing statement as to possible reasons why a jury might not apply the death penalty in this particular case. [The dissent by Justice Breyer is also an example of the general trend of well written and relatively short opinions.] It is useful to remember the facts, but also that in appellate decisions, it is the law that is ultimately the issue. The two intermix in a complex fashion so things do turn out to be rather complex.

[I discuss the Cheney Energy Case here]