"I hope never to see a case like this again."

Justice Sotomayor wrote in conclusion that the prisoner had presented a substantial question of whether his treatment amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. “I cannot comprehend how a court could deem such allegations ‘frivolous,’” she said.

Linda Greenhouse comments here on a solo dissent from denial  that as I note here shows how she sometimes interprets facts differently than others. Her opinion style is often dry but there are times where her personal voice shines through.  Dissents from cert. and today a statement (joined by Breyer) concurring in such a denial is one way she has even in a short period of time done this.  Today's statement is similarly personal, ending with: "I hope never to see a case like this again."

“The prosecutor pressed Calhoun repeatedly to explain why he did not want to be in the hotel room.  Eventually, the District Judge told the prosecutor to move on.  That is when the prosecutor asked, ‘You’ve got African-Americans, you’ve got Hispanics, you’ve got a bag full of money.  Does that tell you — a light bulb doesn’t go off in your head and say, This is a drug deal?’ ”

There is some power when a former urban prosecutor looks at such questioning and responds: "It is deeply disturbing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st Century.”  And, that the defense did not (which helped make the case not cert-worthy) challenge it when it did occur. Judicial statements like these are fairly rare and interesting (at least for those who look for such things) when they do occur.  OTOH, it is sadly not likely that use of race are not ever found in prosecutions throughout the country in various ways.  This does provide a chance to remind the problem with them. 

I somewhat doubt btw that Justice Ginsburg didn't agree with the overall sentiments and it adds some force when a justice is able to make such a personal statement.  Still, it would be nice if one of the conservatives* -- including those who are so concerned with use of race that "benign" affirmative action is offensive to them -- would have concurred.  After all, there is a conservative and libertarian hook to this case as shown here:

[L]aw enforcement officers also testified that they discussed the drugs with Calhoun immediately before they broke cover to arrest the group, and that Calhoun had a gun when he was arrested. In his defense, Calhoun testified that he was not part of and had no knowledge of his friend’s plan to purchase drugs, that he did not under stand the DEA agents when they spoke to him in Spanish only, and that he always carried a concealed firearm, as he was licensed to do.  It was up to the jurors to decide whom they believed.

Criminal cases often touch upon various constitutional liberties, including of a First Amendment caliber, down to the use of recording devices.  Second Amendment issues in the post-Heller world also will get more respect and those who strongly support the right to concealed weapons should find this case notable as well. The application of basic rules of fairness and liberty also is problematic when certain sacred cows arise, be it abortion, gays or guns.  Cases of this sort reaffirm to me that the RKBA is part of the mix here and has potential racial implications.

Anyway, keep up the good work, Justice Sotomayor!

---

[added] * After all, as cited by Sotomayor herself, a B43 appointee concurred separately below to criticize the statement:

Haynes also chastised government lawyers for understating the gravity of the language in question in their brief to the 5th Circuit and noted that the government had not issued an apology. “The Government’s brief calls the question ‘impolitic’ and states: ‘even assuming the question crossed the line,’ as if that is in doubt,” she wrote. “Let me clear up any confusion - the question crossed the line. An apology is in order, and I do not see it in the briefing.”

The link provides some helpful responses from each side.