Today in Supreme Court History: May 24, 1870

5/24/1870: Justice Benjamin Cardozo's birthday.

Justice Benjamin Cardozo

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

In re Shipp, 214 U.S. 386 (verdict rendered May 24, 1909): Only once has there been a criminal trial in the Supreme Court and this was it. The Court had stayed proceedings as to a jailed black murder defendant until appeals could be heard. The defendants, nine local law enforcement personnel, had violated the Court’s order by letting (or helping) a mob carry off the prisoner and lynch him. So the trial for contempt was properly in the court which had issued the stay order -- the Supreme Court. (Though actually evidence was heard by a special master -- good! many Justices should not be entrusted with a trial.) The verdict is a long decision reciting all the evidence and finding some of the accused contemnors guilty.

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (decided May 24, 1983): revocation of tax exemption of private university which based on its interpretation of the Bible prohibited interracial dating/marriage did not violate First Amendment freedom of religion (coincidentally or not, 1983 was the last year this white man had a white girlfriend)

Guam v. United States, 593 U.S. 310 (decided May 24, 2021): Guam cannot recover toxic cleanup costs from U.S. because was not a specific CERCLA (“Superfund”) cleanup such as the statute allowing recoupment requires

Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (decided May 24, 2012): no Double Jeopardy bar to retrial on all charges, even though foreperson in first trial reported that though hung on manslaughter charge the jury had voted to acquit on murder charge

United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (decided May 24, 2010): whether weapon used in crime of violence was a machine gun (18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(B)(ii)) was an element of the crime (beyond reasonable doubt) and not a sentencing factor (preponderance of evidence)

Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (decided May 24, 1999): allowing reporters to “ride along” with a warrant-based search violates the Fourth Amendment, though in that case excused due to unsettled law at the time (and the photos taken were never published)

Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U.S. 461 (decided May 24, 1897): deferring to Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding that State taxation of national banks as well as in-state banks did not violate Equal Protection even thought the effects were different

Sutherland v. Mayer, 271 U.S. 272 (decided May 24, 1926): no favorable treatment to either side in divvying up distribution of German-American business partnership dissolved by 1917 Declaration of War; postwar German hyperinflation ignored in valuation

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (decided May 24, 1976): statute prohibiting pharmacists from advertising drug prices violated First Amendment

Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (decided May 24, 2004): condemned man informed on eve of lethal injection execution that his drug-abuse-compromised vein would be accessed an hour before execution by a 2-inch cut and catheterization without physician present could file suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983; habeas corpus not available because not challenging fact of his imprisonment or the sentence imposed (unanimous decision!) (Nelson died in prison of unrelated causes in 2009)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“(Nelson died in prison of unrelated causes in 2009)”

I wonder what the figures are about Death Row inmates dying of sickness/old age versus dying because their sentences were carried out.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw long ago. A man in jail stripes is in bed connected to an IV. The doctor says to the warden, "Still down with the flu. He won't be healthy enough to execute for at least another week."

[Frank Drackman]

At least they already have IV Access

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

My memory sez that the Illinois governor commuted all death sentences to life without parole (20-30 years ago) because more people had been exonerated due to framing by prosecutors and police than had been executed. It's not directly related, but it's the only thing close I can remember.

[Krayt]

Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (decided May 24, 1999): allowing reporters to “ride along” with a warrant-based search violates the Fourth Amendment, though in that case excused due to unsettled law at the time (and the photos taken were never published)

Well, that explains why the cameramen in Cops were deputized.

[Drewski]

That isn't true, although they've had at least one cameraman who was also a cop. The COPS crew simply didn't enter homes without permission or show the footage without a release.

[SMP0328]

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (decided May 24, 1976): statute prohibiting pharmacists from advertising drug prices violated First Amendment

I think of this decision whenever I see a drug or lawyer commercial.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ask your health care provider, or you may be entitled to compensation entered the lexicon.

[Bob from Ohio]

"drug-abuse-compromised vein"

No such problems with hanging or firing squad. It was, and is, a mistake to try to make execution some sort of medical procedure.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There are a number of condemned men to wanted to die in some such heroic fashion, in the manner of Nathan Hale, Sydney Carton or even deposed "strongmen" like Mussolini or Ceausescu. One garish example, which I remember quite well, was Gary Gilmore in 1977, a juvenile Wild-West spectacle between lawmen and outlaw where adults trying to stop it were told to butt out by both Gilmore and his gleeful executioners.

[SRG2]

And thence, Nike's "just do it"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Moral equivalence?

"On the evening of July 19, 1976, Gilmore robbed and murdered Max Jensen, a gas station employee in Orem, Utah. The next evening, he robbed and murdered Bennie Bushnell, a motel manager in Provo. Although both men had complied with his demands, he murdered them. The young men were each ordered to lie down and then were shot in the head. Both were students at Brigham Young University; both left widows with infants." /Wikipedia

[Bob from Ohio]

"heroic fashion"

Nothing "heroic" about either method. Just effective. Hale's conduct was heroic, not his method of death.

LOL that Il Duce's hanging especially was "heroic". It was brutal and demeaning, he choked to death.

Soldiers [and others] did consider hanging disrespectful. One of the reasons we hung Nazis instead of shooting them.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mussolini was shot by firing squad, not by hanging.

Firing squad was the more dignified way to die. John Andre said that because he was an officer shooting was the proper method, not hanging.

Gilmore was one of many men who wanted to be shot by firing squad, like in the movies. His "heroic" last words: "Just do it." The other choice was the electric chair, not lethal injection. The chair is just as effective as the firing squad, perhaps even more so.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mussolini was shot by firing squad, not by hanging."

Darn, you're right. They hung his corpse.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My source for that information is the movie with George C. Scott -- according to Johnny Carson, "The most convincing Italian since Chico Marx!"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"The chair is just as effective as the firing squad, perhaps even more so"

I don't think the chair is as effective.

I saw a movie* in which the electric chair only empowered the murderer's malevolent spirit to continue killing people. Sometimes one hears of ghosts of hanged men, but at least I don't hear about the embodied spirit of the hanged guy continuing a pre-hanging murder spree.

*Wes Craven's "Shocker"

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well I can't rebut proof like that!!

In law school one guy had a poster of that movie on the side of his carrel. Everyone could see it, coming up to that floor. I've often wondered why he put it there.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

When other people in the theater were laughing at the silliness of the movie, I was indignant at the idea of coming to a movie just to laugh at it. Later, though, I discovered the wonders of MST3K.

[Magister]

With summer approaching, it's good that you guys are practicing movie reviews.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I have a series of new ones that I’m working on.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I watched the worst movie I’ve ever completely watched—Bones and All. I have no idea how that screenplay was greenlit and how they got those actors and director?!? It was bad because the acting was solid and direction was solid but you end up wondering why you watched it??

[SRG2]

IMO Blueford is one of those cases where the justices simply decided that the defendant didn't deserve to be acquitted.

It also makes it easier for a prosecutor - or judge - to game the system. Have multiple charges, and if a jury takes its time, ask the jury how it's voting and then go for a mistrial if the verdict for the most serious offence is an acquittal.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Interesting point. Thanks.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It sounds very fishy – the jury is called in to decide if a person is guilty of murder, they agree he’s not but divide over the lesser manslaughter charge. So they’re dismissed before they can give a verdict of any kind – even though the verdict would be an acquittal of murder, plus a division on the lesser charge. Then the guy is tried for the crime the jury agreed he didn’t do.

This has a Simon Says quality - if the jury had come and said "not guilty of murder" before announcing their division on manslaughter, then presumably no murder retrial would have been allowed. But because the judge never formally demanded a verdict, we play make believe and act like we didn't know what the jury wanted to do.

If the law allows an outcome like that, then Mr. Bumble (the Dickens character, not the commenter) is right.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Sutherland v. Mayer, 271 U.S. 272 (decided May 24, 1926): no favorable treatment to either side in divvying up distribution of German-American business partnership dissolved by 1917 Declaration of War; postwar German hyperinflation ignored in valuation"

How does a declaration of war dissolve partnerships?

[Magister]

If the partners are in countries that are now at war, how could the partnership continue? To continue the partnership during war would open partners on each side to charges of aiding the enemy. It might reasonably only be suspended, but presumably one or both governments at war might seize the assets of such a partnership, and it might be impossible to resume the partnership for a variety of reasons.