Court: no grants, one decision
on May 14, 2007 at 10:03 am
FINAL UPDATE 6:50 p.m.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted no new cases. It issued one ruling — Schriro v. Landrigan (05-1575), reversing the Ninth Circuit. The Court divided 5-4 in ruling that a federal judge did not err in refusing to grant a state prisoner an evidentiary hearing on a claim of inadequate legal advice from his lawyer. The case arose out of a dispute between a man on trial for murder and his defense lawyer offer the client’s opposition to submitting mitigating evidence.
The Court asked for the views of the U.S. Solicitor General on two companion cases and on an original case. The Court invited the government to comment on appeals involving a lawsuit to settle ownership of assets allegedly misappropriated by Ferdinand Marcos when he was Philippine president. One is a petition by the Philippine government, Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel (06-1204, petition here, consol. BIO here, reply here). The cross-appeal is by other claimants, Estate of Roxas v. Pimentel (06-1039).
The original case is Montana v. Wyoming (137 Original), involving a dispute over division of the waters of the Tongue and Powder Rivers under a 1951 Compact. The Court also formally received the report of a Special Master in another original case — New Jersey v. Delaware (134 Original) — and invited the two states to file any exceptions to that report within 45 days. That case involves a dispute over control of development along the New Jersey side of the Delaware River, and out into the river; New Jersey wants to allow construction of a new ship-loading facility for natural gas. Special Master Ralph I. Lancaster, Jr., of Portland, Maine, recommended on April 16 that the Court rule that the two states must share regulatory authority over at least parts of the planned project.
The Court’s decision in the Schiro case appears to make it more difficult for state prisoners seeking federal habeas relief to obtain a hearing on evidence they want to offer to counter their conviction or sentence. An evidentiary hearing can be granted under federal habeas law, the Court said in Monday’s opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, only if the federal judge is satisfied that the evidence to be offered at such a hearing would be strong enough to be likely to change the outcome of the trial or sentencing proceeding.
The capital case involved an Arizona inmae, Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan, who also has been known as Billy Patrick Wayne Hill. In November 1989, he escaped from an Oklahoma prison where he had been serving prison terms for a 1982 murder and a 1986 stabbing in prison. He went to Phoenix, and met a homosexual man who often tried to pick up other men by showing them money.
On December 13, 1989, while visiting that man’s apartment, a dispute developed, and Landrigan wound up stabbing the victim and strangling him with an electrical cord. He stole a paycheck from the victim, and ransacked the apartment. He was convicted of murder, burglary and theft. During the sentencing, his lawyer tried repeatedly to offer mitigating evidence, but Landrigan objected openly and vociferously. He made statements further implicating himself, and showed no remorse.
State courts found that evidence, even if offered, would not have been mitigating, because it was evidence about an anti-social personality disorder. State courts thus found he was not prejudiced by his lawyer’s failure to adequately investigating and present the evidence. He failed in post-conviction challenges in state court, and then pursued federal habeas. The Ninth Circuit ruled that there had to be an evidentiary hearing on the effectiveness of defense counsel.
In overturning the Ninth Circuit Monday, the Supreme Court focused primarily upon the specifics of the case itself. But, in the course of justifying the decision that no evidentiary hearing was necessary, Justice Thomas’ opinion said that the Anti-terrororism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 had not changed the basic rule that granting such hearings was within the District Court judge’s discretion, but had tightened the standards for any habeas review. The District Court must take those standards into account in deciding for or against granting an evidentiary hearing, the Court said. If the judge finds that the evidence to be offered would not change the outcome, no hearing to explore the evidence is necessary, the Court concluded. It found that Landrigan had not met that standard.
Joining in the Thomas opinion were Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the dissenters, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. The dissenters complained that the majority had engaged in “pure guesswork” about whether the evidence would have made a difference in the sentencing. The majority, Stevens added, engaged in a “parsimonious appraisal” of the constitutional right to have the sentencing decision reflect meaningful consideration of all mitigating evidence.
In granting no new cases for review, the Court bypassed some significant issues. Here are summaries of some of the denied cases:
** A request, in an Enron scandal case, to clarify the standards that appeals courts are to use in judging the defenses that an accused makes to charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The appeal was by a former executive of the investment banking firm of Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, James A. Brown, growing out of a deal by Merrill Lynch and Enron over temporary ownership of some power-generating barges moored off the coast of Nigeria. Brown received a 46-month prison sentence. His appeal sought to test the judgment about when the defense of literal truth was available to a charge of perjury, and to test the standards to be applied when questions before a grand jury are ambiguous. (Brown v. U.S., 06-975)
** Whether it is unconstitutional for a local government to use public funds to try to influence theoutcome of an election on a voter initiative or referendum. The Sixth Circuit Court, applying the doctrine that government, too, has free speech rights, rejected a challenge to the intervention in a voter referendum over creation and funding of a new fire department in the town of Union Ohio. (Kidwell v. City of Union, 06-1226)
** A test case on the power of the federal government to regulate or even ban dietary supplements. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to weigh the safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements, just as it does for medicines. (Nutraceutical Corp. v. Eschenbach [FDA], 06-922)
** A new case testing the authority of states to limit sales of wine. The issue in a Virginia case was whether it violates the Commerce Clause for a state to allow state-run liquor stores that have a monopoly on beverage sales to sell only Virginia-made wines. The Fourth Circuit rejected the challenge. (Brooks v. Vassar, 06-1111)
** An appeal seeking an interpretation of the 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky barring race-bases used of peremptory challenges in criminal trials. The question was whether appeals courts are obliged to compare, on appeal, the differing treatment of jurors of different races, when such a comparative study was not sought during the trial. (Newland v. Boyd, 06-1032)
** In a second Batson sequel, the Court left intact a Fifth Circuit Court ruling reinstating a prior ruling that the Supreme Court had ordered it to reconsider. The appeal contended that the Circuit Court failed to follow the Court’s mandate to examine more closely the prosecutor’s supposedly race-neutral reasons for striking black jurors. (Hightower v. Terry, 06-1209)
