Today in Supreme Court History: May 12, 1790

5/12/1790: Justice James Iredell takes the judicial oath.

Justice James Iredell

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (decided May 12, 1980): Armed robbery defendant, after being given Miranda warnings and riding in police car, should have been given additional Miranda warning before officer’s comment that missing shotgun might be picked up by children in nearby school for the handicapped which prompted defendant to ask the police to take him back to the scene to find the shotgun, evidence of which should have been suppressed. (I’ve been to the neighborhood involved in that case, Mount Pleasant in Providence. It’s working class, semi-attached triple-decker houses. My in-laws live there. Providence in general is a unique and interesting place. There is indeed a school for disabled children there, part of the high school, called Harold A. Birch School. Perhaps Mr. Innis was aware of the school and knew the policeman’s concern as to disabled children picking up his gun was a legitimate one.)

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 520 U.S. 471 (decided May 12, 1997): preclearance of proposed redistricting (§5 of the Voting Rights Act) is not necessarily denied if there is intentional vote dilution (§2) because purpose of §5 is to prevent retrogression to earlier discrimination (§5 is a dead letter now that §4(b) was deactivated in Shelby County v. Holder, 2013)

Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (decided May 12, 1975): denial of Equal Protection to restrict voting on city bond issue to those who would directly bear the resulting tax increase (i.e., property owners); this is not a “special interest” election (where the franchise can be restricted appropriately) because all citizens would bear cost in some way (this was to build a new library)

Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (decided May 12, 1997): materiality of defendant’s false statement to grand jury (i.e., source of box of cash which she knew was really the result of drug trafficking) should have been question for the jury in perjury trial but harmless error because evidence of materiality was “overwhelming”

Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585 (decided May 12, 1913): determination that petitioner had entered country to practice prostitution and therefore would be deported did not require evidence of conviction of prostitution in home country

Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213 (decided May 12, 1975): defendants arrested under state anti-boycott law (they were boycotting whites-only businesses) did not allege sufficient civil rights violations so as to justify removal under 28 U.S.C. §1443(1)

Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 (decided May 12, 2008): consent of counsel, and not of his client, sufficed to allow magistrate (and not judge) to preside over voir dire in felony case

Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (decided May 12, 1980): murder defendant sharing counsel with other defendants was entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protections in state criminal trial, but under Sixth Amendment Right to Assistance of Counsel trial court must inquire only into any actual (not potential) conflicts of interest between defendants

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn't Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) cover Ri v. Innis?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Brewer involved emotional blackmail. However there is a “public safety” exception to the warrant requirement (New York v. Quarles, 1984, defendant ditched his gun in supermarket where it could be found by a child) and I don’t know why it didn’t apply in Innis.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t know why it didn’t apply in Innis.

Well, for one thing, you've gotten the holding of Innis backwards. SCOTUS held in that case that the police statement was not the functional equivalent of an interrogation and therefore the guy's revelation of the shotgun was admissible. The "functional equivalent of an interrogation," it held, meant any statements by the police that they knew or should have known were likely to elicit an incriminating statement. The cops here (according to SCOTUS) had no reason to think that Innis was going to respond to their conversation by revealing the gun.

Quarles — which held that the public safety exception allowed actual interrogation — would have indeed also allowed the prisoner's statements to be admissible, but since 1984 is after 1980, it couldn't possibly have applied in Innis.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Will revise.

Thinking of Detroit Lumber, I avoid reading the syllabi (which is probably a mistake), just the opinions, and the dissent was so convincing, and the opinion so unconvincing, at least as to these facts, that I got the wrong impression. How could two officers, knowing the defendant was in earshot in the back of their car, talk about the danger of leaving the shotgun lying around, if they did not think he would pipe up and volunteer the information if he was guilty? This is almost as bad as "We will kill your children if you don't talk!"

[David Nieporent]

In Brewer, the officers knew the suspect was religious and expressly appealed to his religious sensibilities. Here, the court said, the officers had no objective reason to believe that this guy would be moved by a reference to the safety of handicapped kids.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Perhaps the biggest difference is in how much the country had changed between 1977 and 1984. It's been said that Justices read the election returns, and these ones were clear.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog rarely misses a chance to celebrate a slaver.

It's up there with racial slurs, xenophobia, gay-bashing, and transphobia as a consistent Volokh Conspiracy favorite.

[NvEric]

So, how many slaves did your family own way back when ?
Did your family transport slaves to the US ?
How many slaves did your family capture and sell to slave shippers ?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

None, so far as I am aware.

No.

None.

Plus, I am not a Confederacy-hugging, racial slur-launching, conservative clinger.

[ReaderY]

Bullshit. You openly support people who openly want to restore slavery to the Middle East. And you tell the same bullshit stories about the dark days of Jewish government fomented by colonialist foreign Zionist agitators that the KKK and the Southern Redeemers told about the supposedly dark days of Negro government fomented by colonialist foreign carpetbaggers – confiscation of land, widespread theft, murder and mayhem on a mass scale.

You believe it because you believe similar stereotypes about Jews to what the Klan believed about Negros. Exactly as the Klan said about Negros, you regularly describe Zionists among others as backwards superstitious savages fit only to be ruled by their betters. Yes you say that, and pretty frequently. Exactly as the Klan said about white people, you see it as part of your mission to bring civilization to the savage. Indeed, the fact that you find it utterly obvious (in your own eyes) that you are civilized and they savages, which you repeat and repeat and repeat, entirely justifies your claim to rule. Just like the Klan.

At least a few small things have improved. You call Jews (at least the uppity Zionistic ones who want self-government) greedy, vicious, self-absorbed, thieving, stealing. Just as the Klan described Negros. You call them parasites on society unless firmly under the thumb of “their betters” (a phrase you use frequently). Just as the Klan described Negros.

But you don’t call Jews, Zionist or otherwise, stupid or lazy. And you don’t call them cowards. As recently as the 1940s the Nazis regulary called Jews cowards, it was part of the stock stereotypical depiction of Jews. But you don’t.

I would say that’s because the Zionists have changed the world’s view of Jews. Some of the stereotypes the Klan used to describe Negros have had to be put aside. Even people like you know that with the coming of Zionism, there’s now a limit to what you can get people to believe about Jews. You have to lean all the more heavily on murder and theft. Stupidity, laziness, and cowardice is no longer an option.

And that’s an improvement.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't like superstitious right-wing belligerents, Jewish or not.

I don't like war-crimey right-wingers, Jewish or not.

I don't like bigoted right-wingers, Jewish or not.

I hope the United States offers citizenship to every decent Israeli, Jewish or not.

After providing that opportunity, I hope the United States stops subsidizing (at great cost, in varied ways) the people who support the settler terrorists in the West Bank and the war-criming right-wingers killing thousands of children in Gaza.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

So you're happy with ...

... superstitious left-wing belligerents, Jewish or not.

... war-crimey left-wingers, Jewish or not.

... bigoted left-wingers, Jewish or not.

[defaultdotxbe]

Ignorance is bliss, apparently.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The ignorance of bigoted right-wingers isn't entirely bad . . . that ignorance has enabled better Americans to defeat the half-educated, bigoted, superstitious clingers in the culture war.

[Frank Drackman]

OK I knew you were a pompous Bas-turd and now you admit it. None of your ancestors owned slaves? Can you prove it? OK I’m pretty sure my moms side of the family didn’t own any unless Slavery was a thing in Upper Silesia, my Dads side? They owned cotton farms in Georgia, who do you think was picking the Cotton (thanks to a Connecticut Yankee)

Frank

[NvEric]

To be fair and since it has a nice rhythm, being written very well :
Whitey on the moon

A rat done bit my sister Nell. (with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell. (and Whitey’s on the moon)
I can’t pay no doctor bill. (but Whitey’s on the moon)
Ten years from now I’ll be payin’ still. (while Whitey’s on the moon) …
Taxes takin’ my whole damn check,
Junkies makin’ me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin’ up,
An’ as if all that shit wasn’t enough …
Was all that money I made las’ year
(for Whitey on the moon?)

How come there ain’t no money here? (Hm! Whitey’s on the moon)
Y’know I jus’ ’bout had my fill (of Whitey on the moon)
I think I’ll sen’ these doctor bills, Airmail special
(to Whitey on the moon)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are bigots are your fans and defenders, Volokh Conspirators . . . and a reason no one associated with this white, male, right-wing blog will be inflicted on UCLA law students any longer.

Carry on, clingers . . . so far as better Americans permit.

[Frank Drackman]

The Bigots in your mirror, and do you have a “K/O” Neglect Syndrome? It’s “Klingers” with a “K” and “Bettors” with an “O”, and the “Rev.” is for “Revolting” as in “Nauseating” not in the opposition to the established Government meaning

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

You know why no Afro-Americans walked on the moon? (First “Moonwalk” done by one of the Whiteist guys ever, Neil Armstrong)
No, it’s not a joke about how NASA invented Velcro

Frank