SCOTUS Opinions

[I originally posted a form of this the day the opinions were released but will provide this updated version as a new version.  Since then, SCOTUS has announced another opinion day.  They are slowly catching up after a slow start.]

Florida had a habit of executing a few people a year after it became the first state to involuntarily execute someone (Gary Gilmore "volunteered") after the country started to do again after the mid-1970s.  The last two were executed in 2019, both serial killers.  That would be #98 and 99.

Donald Dillbeck is not a serial killer but seems on some level the sort of person the death penalty is there to handle.  He murdered a police officer (when he was 15) and was given life in prison.  Today, Dillbeck would have to be at some point at least offered a chance of parole unless deemed particularly horrible.  

Moot point.  He escaped one day and murdered a woman.  On some level, there is a "what? oh come on!" flavor to his crime:

Dillbeck, now 59, was initially sentenced to life in prison in the 1979 shooting death of Lee County sheriff’s Deputy Dwight Lynn Hall when Dillbeck was 15. But in 1990, he walked away from a catering function in Quincy where he and other inmates were working.

Dillbeck went to Tallahassee, got a knife and tried to carjack a vehicle, according to court documents. Faye Vann, who was sitting in the car, resisted and was fatally stabbed, with Dillbeck then arrested after crashing the car. He was convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder, armed robbery and armed burglary, Department of Corrections records show.

And, he was cited as an example of criminal negligence of a sort akin to the whole Willie Horton affair.  It's somewhat unclear how you can be lax enough to let a person in prison for life because he killed a police officer to escape.  I am all for allowing people in prison some discretion to do things.  But, you have to keep an eye on such people.  These days, I would hope, there would be some way to put a monitoring device on them or something. 

(A news bit over the weekend informed us that Jimmy Carter -- 98 -- is going into hospice care. So, we might not have much more time with him in this world. Well, he had over forty years of good work since he was POTUS.  He had a great run.  And, darn, Mary Price ... that's some story.)

I do not know what executing Donald Dillbeck thirty years later will do as a matter of public welfare.  I again cite Breyer's dissent in Glossip v. Gross to remind us that executing after a long term on death row is constitutionally problematic.  His lawyers also cited mental incapacity and the fact that his death sentence is the result of a non-animous jury finding.  

He murdered someone during a botched escape after around ten years in prison.  He should not have had the chance to escape in the first place. A crime when he was 15 should not have meant life imprisonment so even in that sense the death penalty should not have been the only option. And, the vote for execution was 8-4, even with those facts. 

And,  if his mental status (a bad childhood is also cited) is a problem, that too might be added.  An execution of Dillbeck is not the level of travesty of some executions.  I would still note his execution -- especially after thirty years -- seems much more pointless than the execution of the two serial killers before him.  

Public safety and justice as a whole does not benefit too much from executing him. Like the recent execution of someone who murdered a police officer after a reckless chase, there are other things I would address than doing that.  One conservative legal mind (who granted the result was right in the Arizona case) argued a life would be saved if he was executed for his first murder quickly.  So, we are going to execute all murderers, including those fifteen years old when they murder?  

At any rate, the Supreme Court rejected his final appeal without comment.  As a rule, I rather they make the final call 24-48 hours before the scheduled execution.  The same-day death watch is a morbid and bad policy.  More than once, in fact, the final decision made it impossible to carry out the execution!  Maybe, that seems okay for someone against the death penalty, but I think it's not a good way to run a railroad.  

He was executed.  Coverage included the "consciousness tests" they use to make sure the person is really finished.  I'll repeat my previous comment that I'm impressed with some of the local coverage of executions in particular.  

He did use his last words to badmouth Gov. DeSantis. Okay.  A few liked that, but you know, the guy is a murderer of two people.  I think there is something to going out swinging, but I'll take my digs (with or without profanities) from other people.

The 8-4 jury thing is convenient too since DeSantis wants to make it easier to sentence people to death.  The opportunity to promote one of his "tough on crime" proposals seems mighty convenient here, though just how much its serendipity and the execution purposely being chosen for that reason is unclear.  Given Ring v. Arizona, that might be tricky though if the jury isn't deciding "facts" but merely sentencing, it might work.  

The Supreme Court has held unanimous (states are still allowed to have juries of less than twelve but at least six) juries are constitutionally necessary.  That was the practice generally, one state and Puerto Rico didn't have it when SCOTUS ruled upon it too long ago, anyhow.  

I would say even granting maybe you can allow someone dissenting, 8-4 is rather divided, especially for the death penalty.  

==

Three opinions were announced (wrongly not live-streamed) and released on Wednesday.  

Leah Litman in the past flagged the criminal case out of Arizona as an injustice (in a capital case) that had to be fixed.  It was by a bare 5-4 majority, Sotomayor vs. Barrett.  The dissent drew a line in the sand, citing cases back to 1792 to deem this as an egregious ("assertion is jarring") interference with state courts.  

She later expanded it for a Slate article.  The opening bit on how liberals should be relieved about the opinions handed down annoyed me.  We had two bland opinions, which is not novel especially as part of the first set released, and then a 5-4 opinion in a case that is apparently blatantly clear.  

Some are shocked Roberts and Kavanaugh went along, as if either is akin to Alito and loathe ever to rule for a criminal defendant.  It is a simplistic view of the current situation. And, I didn't think even this ruling was "unexpected."  SCOTUS still now and then finds some extreme criminal injustice and this is one such case.

A dispute over an application of a rule about overtime pay also had some spleen, this time from Kagan for 6-3 Court. Gorsuch would have "DIGGED" but Kavanaugh (with Alito) dissented on the merits.  Or, in Kagan's words "recognizing that the argument may be forfeited, but opining on it anyway." She also did her "baby hit me one more time" bit: "And if all that leaves the tiniest doubt—well, still we are not done."  

I do not claim to know the right path here, but it's hard not to smile when Kagan (or anyone really) has her claws out for Kavanaugh.  Yes, the little angel on my shoulder disfavors heated rhetoric and snark in court opinions. I'm not sure if the long footnote with that dig (and others, like "That is a non-sequitur to end all non-sequiturs") was necessary.  But, yeah, the liberals need something to vent their frustrations.  

She showed a bit of snark against the general claim and Gorsuch -- though she was more playful with him -- but yeah, the level of snark here comes off a tad bit pointed.

The third case was a unanimous one settling a bankruptcy rule. Barrett has her second opinion of a small sample size this term with Sotomayor (with Jackson) adding a short (and low temp) concurring statement noting its limited reach.  The decision includes some of the facts, involving some perils of house repair that remind me a bit of a Cary Grant movie.