Today in Supreme Court History: June 13, 1977

6/13/1977: Justice Tom C. Clark dies.

Justice Tom C. Clarke

 

Comments

[captcrisis]

Problem posting today. Please see my website for today’s actual decisions.

[captcrisis]

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (decided June 13, 1966): asking questions of detained witness without advising of right to remain silent violates Fifth Amendment guarantee against self incrimination (Congress tried to abrogate this holding by statute in 1968, but the statute was chipped away at and finally struck down in Dickerson v. United States, 2000) (Miranda was re-tried in Arizona court without the invalid confession and convicted; charge was rape and kidnapping, 104 Ariz. 174; I don’t know why Double Jeopardy didn’t apply)

Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1 (decided June 13, 1994): jury can consider defendant’s previous death sentence (for a concomitant killing) in determining sentence for murder

ZF Automotive US v. Luxshare, Ltd., 596 U.S. — (decided June 13, 2022): overseas arbitration proceedings are not “foreign tribunals” for which discovery can be sought under 28 U.S.C. §1782

United States v. Bryant, 579 U.S. 140 (decided June 13, 2016): upholding 18 U.S.C. §117(a), which requires increased penalty for domestic violence on Native American Reservations if two previous convictions in Native American courts even if not represented by counsel; Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in Native American courts for crimes with penalties of less than one year, 25 U.S.C. §1302(c)(2), and procedural protections of Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 were adequate

​Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. — (decided June 13, 2022): instead of appealing, defendant must get relief from final judgment under F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) where court makes procedural mistake even though mistake not obvious (Eleventh Circuit had miscalculated time after drug conviction to seek cert) (and here defendant had missed the applicable deadline for a 60(b)(1) motion) (in the Court’s historical review of postjudgment relief it uses the evocative phrase, “statutory language obviously transplanted from another legal source will often bring the old soil with it”)

Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (decided June 13, 1977): denying college financial assistance to resident aliens violates Equal Protection

Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, 579 U.S. 115 (decided June 13, 2016): Puerto Rico statute allowing public utilities to structure their debts preempted by federal Bankruptcy Code (Puerto Rico was undergoing a fiscal crisis and found it had been singled out in a mysterious change to the Bankruptcy Code which of course it had no voice in; see John Oliver’s segment on this)

Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (decided June 13, 1996): Due Process not offended by state law barring defendant from arguing he was intoxicated as a defense to mental state required for crime (here, murder by gunshot wound) (his blood alcohol was 0.36% even some hours after the incident! 0.5% will kill you)

Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (decided June 13, 1966): Voting Rights Act requiring everyone with a sixth grade education to be allowed to vote superseded New York law requiring proficiency in English (this would have applied specifically to my grandfather, who went up to sixth grade in Italy but was never literate in English; his career as a groundskeeper started in the WPA under FDR but by the time I got to know him he voted proudly Republican)

Gojack v. United States, 384 U.S. 702 (decided June 13, 1966): contempt against person who spoke back to HUAC and didn’t answer questions reversed because HUAC never formally authorized investigation into this area (“Communist Party activity in the field of labor”)

[captcrisis]

The comment got accepted after I deleted the link to the John Oliver segment, which is odd because yesterday I put the same link into a comment and it was accepted (though as another commenter pointed out, it wasn’t really on point to the discussion).

Anyway I urge everyone to see the Oliver segment, available on youtube. As usual he makes technical stuff easy to understand, and one can see a lot of research went into it. And somehow manages to put in some topical jokes, though a couple are a bit dated because it’s from 2016, the year of the decision I summarized.

[defaultdotxbe]

(his blood alcohol was 0.36% even some hours after the incident! 0.5% will kill you)

BAC peaks about an hour to two hours after consumption*, and according to a synop of the trial case he was tested 1 hour after his arrest. It didn’t include anything about a time of death for the victims but its entirely possible he began drinking after the murders, perhaps to escape thoughts of what he had just done, or perhaps to try to craft his alibi.

*A friend of mine tried to bring this up when he got a DUI, that his BAC was tested 2 hours after his arrest, therefore the result was irrelevant to what his BAC was at the time he was driving. The judge didn’t buy it.

[F.D. Wolf]

At Miranda’s re-trial for the kidnapping and rape of a developmentally disabled 18-year-old girl, he was again found guilty. Naturally, his confession was inadmissible, but this time the state had the testimony of his now-estranged wife, who testified that he had confessed his crime to her soon after it happened. Miranda was sentenced to between 20 and 30 years, and was paroled in 1972, after serving 5 years. A few years later, he was sent back to prison for a year after being found in possession of a firearm, in violation of his parole.

After his release, Miranda made a little money by selling autographed cards with the Miranda warnings printed on them. On January 31, 1976, Miranda went to a downtown Phoenix bar and began playing poker with two Mexicans. After a dispute over $1.80, one of them stabbed and killed him. Ernesto Miranda was 34 years old.

The man who stabbed him disappeared into the night, but the police arrested his companion at the scene. After the police placed him in a police car, the man fished a small card out of his pocket and began to read what was printed on it: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say…” Invoking his Miranda rights, the man refused to answer police questions. He was released, and the other suspect was never found. No one was ever charged in the death of Ernesto Miranda.

[captcrisis]

Full of ironies. Thanks.

I still don’t know why Miranda was allowed to be retried in the face of Double Jeopardy protection.

[F.D. Wolf]

If, absent the inadmissible evidence, the remaining evidence would have been insufficient to sustain a conviction, then Double Jeopardy would apply. But, in this case, the confession was not the only evidence. The victim in the case also testified to the details of the attack. While, “The evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the verdict,” is pretty routine boilerplate in a criminal appeal, I don’t think the Court even addressed the question, though I can’t imagine such an argument would have gone anywhere given the victim’s eyewitness testimony.

[apedad]

IANAL but wouldn’t it be because he appealed and won the appeal, so the case was kicked back and the govt was allowed to re-try him?

So it’s like the first trial never happened.

[F.D. Wolf]

When a conviction is overturned on appeal, in most cases, the defendant can be retried. The chief exception is when the reason for the reversal is insufficient evidence. Another exception would be a failure to provide a speedy trial.

[defaultdotxbe]

the man fished a small card out of his pocket and began to read what was printed on it

But was it autographed?

[Bob from Ohio]

“kidnapping and rape of a developmentally disabled 18-year-old girl”

5 years for this! No wonder parole has been scaled back in many places.

“stabbed and killed him”

I do love happy endings.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do love happy endings.

Me, too. For example, better Americans winning the culture war, relegating our vestigial conservatives to inconsequential whining and cultural irrelevance in modern, inclusive, educated, reasoning, science-respecting, America.

[apedad]

Re: Montana v. Egelhoff

Facts of the case

James Allen Egelhoff was tried in Montana courts for two counts of homicide. Egelhoff claimed that extreme intoxication rendered him physically incapable of committing or recalling the crimes. Montana law did not allow Egelhoff’s intoxicated condition to be considered. Subsequently, Egelhoff was found guilty. The Supreme Court of Montana reversed the decision. It held Egelhoff had a due process right to present all relevant evidence. Moreover, it held that Montana law’s denial of such a presentation relieved the state from part of its burden of proof needed to convict Egelhoff.

Question

May a state restrict the elements of a defense in criminal prosecution, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause?

Conclusion (5 – 4)

Yes. The Court could not reach a majority on the reasons for its decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, who announced the judgment of the Court, declared that defendants do not have an absolute constitutional right to present all relevant evidence in their defense. (oyez)

(Decision written by Justice Scalia)

The (Due Process) Clause does place limits upon restriction of the right to introduce evidence, but only where the restriction “offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” See Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197,201-202. Respondent has failed to meet the heavy burden of establishing that a defendant’s right to have a jury consider voluntary intoxication evidence in determining whether he possesses the requisite mental state is a “fundamental principle of justice.” The primary guide in making such a determination, historical practice, gives respondent little support. It was firmly established at common law that a defendant’s voluntary intoxication provided neither an “excuse” nor a “justification” for his crimes; the common law’s stern rejection of inebriation as a defense must be understood as also precluding a defendant from arguing that, because of his intoxication, he could not have possessed the mens rea necessary to commit the crime. (justia)

I didn’t like the oyez description that Justice Scalia said that defendants do not have an absolute constitutional right to present all relevant evidence in their defense.

Maybe it should have read the defendant – in this case – does not have an absolute constitutional right to present all evidence in his defense (especially since the evidence was determined to be not relevant).

Othewise I would certainly hope that defendants do have a constitutional right to present all RELEVANT evidence in their defense.

[SRG]

Scalia begins his opinion with “The State Supreme Court’s proposition that the Due Process Clause guarantees the right to introduce all relevant evidence is indefensible.” and a moment later, “The Clause does place limits upon restriction of the right to introduce evidence, but only where the restriction “offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”

i.e., another instance where Scalia delivers a result-orientated decision.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I won’t defend or oppose Scalia’s decision, but if someone chooses to drink himself into a stupor and then wakes up in a pool of someone’s blood, that would seem to me to indicate an abandoned and malignant heart.

[SRG]

Agreed – but the jury should be permitted to make the decision.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Certainly.

[SRG]

I think it’s quite obvious from the dissent in Dickerson that Scalia didn’t and Thomas doesn’t agree with Miranda – presumably on the actual grounds that it makes it more difficult to convict people.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think it’s quite obvious from the dissent in Dickerson that Scalia didn’t and Thomas doesn’t agree with Miranda

What clued you in? Was it the part where they said that they didn’t agree with it?

presumably on the actual grounds that it makes it more difficult to convict people.

You don’t think it might have had something to do with the basis they articulated? I.e. the fact that there’s clearly no basis for it in the text of the Fifth Amendment?

[captcrisis]

Thought provoking and strange. The jury would be thinking, “He’s a goner anyway. Why not kill him twice?” Other countries would think this scenario almost comically barbaric. Which of course it was. They probably imagined us frying this guy in the chair, then moving the charred corpse to another chair, and frying him again.

In fact the prosecution was guarding against reversal of the first death sentence (which is indeed what happened, albeit later on).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Other countries would think this scenario almost comically barbaric.”

Like the countries which allow assisted suicide? Or are you thinking of poor countries which are still working on updating their justice systems?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Wasn’t Cromwell dug up and tried for treason, then drawn and quartered? I think some Pope was also dug and tried for some crime.

[defaultdotxbe]

When I was a kid I used to think being given multiple life sentences, or ridiculously long sentences like 100+ years meant the person was buried in the prison and only moved to a regular cemetery when their sentence was over.

I later learned of course it had to do with paroles, or as you say guarding against reversal.

[captcrisis]

You’re thinking of the “Cadaver Synod” where Pope Stephen VI had Pope Formosus, dead for almost a year, dug up and put on a throne to be “tried”. Even by the corrupt and degraded standards of the 10th-century Papacy this was too much and Stephen was soon deposed (if not murdered).

[Mr. Bumble]

Which sentence; Miranda’s or Bob’s last sentence in his comment?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

That’s probably the Pope I was thinking of.

I looked up Cromwell; he was dug up and executed, but no trial.

From Wikipedia:

Cromwell’s body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey on 30 January 1661, the 12th anniversary of the execution of Charles I, and was subjected to a posthumous execution, as were the remains of John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton. (The body of Cromwell’s daughter was allowed to remain buried in the abbey.) His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn, London, and then thrown into a pit. His head was cut off and displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685. Afterwards, it was owned by various people, including a documented sale in 1814 to Josiah Henry Wilkinson, and it was publicly exhibited several times before being buried beneath the floor of the antechapel at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, in 1960. The exact position was not publicly disclosed, but a plaque marks the approximate location.

[captcrisis]

Akkk

He died in 1658 so how much was there left of him?