Guilty Even If Attorney is Incompetent or a Liar
Both Vox and Crooks and Liars had an article up on this issue. As did SCOTUS Blog.
Not an attorney; but, I can tell you all the fun we had with a liar for an attorney, who took $10,000, lied to the court, had exparte conversation in judge’s chambers, was responsible for the death of a person from drugs in his apartment his mule picked up for him from dealers. Thats another story and maybe sometime I will talk about it.
This is an interesting comment by Justice Clarence Thomas:
“Thomas stated that the Supreme Court has ‘discretion to forgive any forfeiture’ and because deciding the issue would reduce the likelihood of future litigation, ‘we choose to forgive the State’s forfeiture before the District Court.’”
Just to get to Federal Court from the state court(s) a defendant must raise all issues in a state court which they will present in Federal Court. If they do not, it is inadmissible in Federal Court. We can thank Bill Clinton for signing the AEDPA bill for this.
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (A.E.D.P.A.) is surely one of the worst statutes ever passed by Congress and signed into law by a President. The heart of the law is a provision saying that, even when a state court misapplies the Constitution, a defendant cannot necessarily have his day in federal court. Instead, he must prove that the state court’s decision was “contrary to” what the Supreme Court has determined is “clearly established federal law,” or that the decision was “an unreasonable application of” it.
What Thomas is saying, is; “Even though the state violated your constitutional rights, we do not have to hear it even if you raised this issue in state court. We can forgive the state’s failure to do so.” wink-wink.” Especially if excusing the issue would reduce the likelihood of future litigation, “we choose to forgive the State’s forfeiture before the District Court.” In other words, I do not want to hear of your rights as a citizen. This opens up a whole new venue.
May 24, 2024; “Sotomayor Blasts SCOTUS Colleagues For ‘Perverse, Illogical’ Ruling” or the “Conservative majority hollows out precedent on ineffective-counsel claims in federal court.” The court, 6-3, ruled federal judges cannot hear new evidence from death row inmates arguing that their state-appointed lawyers did not provide constitutionally adequate defense.
The upshot of this decision: If the state appoints you a lawyer who is constitutionally ineffective at your trial; and then appoints you ANOTHER lawyer who is constitutionally ineffective to argue your trial lawyer was ineffective … you’re screwed. People raising this is; Barry Jones, one of the petitioners in this case whose conviction came after shoddy police work and inadequate defense. David Ramirez, the second petitioner, is severely mentally disabled. That fact was never raised by his defense attorney, even though federal law would exempt Ramirez from the death penalty.
Always remember, the criminal justice system is incredibly complex and from the moment you’re charged or arrested, anything you do and say can be held against you in court. If you’ve been accused of a crime, even if you haven’t been charged yet, do not underestimate your situation. The outcome of a criminal case can affect your entire future, even when the truth is on your side. The experience and dedication of a seasoned defense lawyer can make all the difference and give you the best chance for a successful outcome for your case. It’s also vital that you get an expert legal help from criminal lawyers Gold Coast – straight away.
The state’s (AZ) argument: “it does not matter if the prisoner is actually innocent, as the lower courts found in the case of Barry Lee Jones. If Jones ‘failed to develop’ the evidence of his trial lawyer’s ineffectiveness in state court, the federal courts are powerless to alter his conviction and death sentence.”
Don’tcha wonder how these guys sleep at night?
“John Roberts in Trevino v. Thaler, a case applying Martinez, argued the scope of Martinez was uniquely narrow. Roberts cited the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent from Martinez itself (which he joined) predicting the decision would put a significant strain on state resources.”
Lets just shoot him and get it over with, I have a Tee Off time two hours from now. Get my drift?
“On this front, Thomas bemoaned the ‘sprawling evidentiary hearing’ held by the district court in Barry Lee Jones’ case, which involved 10 witnesses, including various investigators and forensic pathologists who did not testify at trial. “This wholesale relitigation of Jones’ guilt,’ he wrote, ‘is plainly not what Martinez envisioned.”
Welcome to the club of having to work when you don’t want to work.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Calling the majority opinion “perverse,” “illogical,” and saying it “makes no sense.” The decision all but overrules two recent precedents” and “guts Martinez’s and Trevino’s core reasoning.” (This criticism was echoed by Robert Loeb, the defendants’ counsel, who in a written statement said, “today’s decision guts Martinez and renders the review promised by the Court [less than ten years ago] meaningless.”)
A defendant represented by a constitutionally ineffective lawyer cannot be held to be “at fault” for his lawyer’s errors. “A petitioner cannot logically be faultless for not bringing a claim because of postconviction counsel’s ineffectiveness, yet at fault for not developing its evidentiary basis for exactly the same reason.”
In dissent, “The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial. This Court [in Martinez] has recognized that right as ‘a bedrock principle’ that constitutes the very ‘foundation for our adversary system’ of criminal justice. Today the Court hamstrings the federal courts’ authority to safeguard that right. The Court’s decision will leave many people who were convicted in violation of the Sixth Amendment to face incarceration or even execution without any meaningful chance to vindicate their right to counsel.”
Thomas does not care . . . I think one commenter on AB may have a point. The overthrow of the nation’s government may come though SCOTUS.
The overthrow of the nation by SCOTUS started when it decided Bush was President.
The slow dismantle of the rights of the American people by the Robert’s court is preceding as planned. I am not anything close to a court historian but I cannot for the life of me think of a court more open to condoning human misery.
How does a person then condone and greenlight such actions?
April 13, 1873 the Colfax Massacre occurred, the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period.
Another “one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, United States v. Cruikshank. In Cruikshank, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment did not allow the federal government to prosecute individuals for violating the fundamental rights of others—including the First Amendment right to assemble and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—even in states that were ignoring racial violence and intimidation.
The blatant misreading of the 14th Amendment – ratified eight years earlier and explicitly dedicated to providing federal protection for the privileges and immunities of all Americans – southern state governments systematically turned a blind eye towards the violence, intimidation, and disfranchisement of blacks throughout the South. Cruikshank should have been an easy case.”
This decision by the Waite Court “wrote in the high court’s decision that the enforcement clause was not designed to protect individuals against the actions of other individuals but only from those of the state itself.”
In other words, the state had jurisdiction and not the federal gov . . . “states rights.”
True, I should have been more precise with my language. I should have added in “modern times”
I agree. One wishes the ghosts of Christmas would come on the Eve of Christmas for a visit.
Followed the link about the lower court finding Barry Lee Jones innocent and it’s not clear really. Pretty much just restates that claim. Which court found that and why didn’t that end the process? Curious, who was the appellant in this case?
There are two more parts to this. This is Part III and the Court Findings.
After 23 Years on Arizona Death Row, Barry Jones Wins Relief (theintercept.com) Part III, Court Findings: Barry Jones Order 07-31-18 – DocumentCloud
“…because deciding the issue would reduce the likelihood of future litigation, ‘we choose to forgive the State’s forfeiture befor…”
if this means, as it seems to me, that reducing …future litigation” is a proper justification for not hearing cases, because, presumably, the workload on the Court is excessive…
that would seem to present a very good reason to increase the number of Justices (aka “pack the Court). Maybe we should carpe diem.
as far as the Court hurting people and destroying Rights Americans might have thought they had, one should not overlook the finding that “illegal combatants” and prisoners at Guantanamo…not on American soil… are not protected by the Constitution.
I would have thought the Constitution protected anybody subject to the power of the government.
It is amazing what “logic” can do, like meat grinder if you happen to fall into it, it will very logically grind you into a pulp. I would not be the first person to compare “the Law” to a meat grinder.
As for Dred Scott, I have been told the decision was “correct” following the Constitutional requirement to return escaped slaves to their owners. But this ignores the State’s rights to abolish slavery within their own borders. It ignores due process for the alleged escaped slave. It also ignores the implication that slave owners could take their “property” with them, rendering moot Free States laws against slavery. It also ignores that Scott was not an escaped slave. And it begs the question about who is a “person” under the Constitution. Lincoln and others recognized most of this (and I could be wrong about parts of it) but they had no remedy other than ignoring the Court, hoping to gradually replace the Court, or..at the request of the South…fighting a Civil War and creating popular demand for Amending the Constitution.
Me, I am more worried about the Court’s ignoring the obvious destruction of democracy itself by State voting laws and appointment of vote oversight by people with an obvious and loud intention to prevent or ignore any vote they don’t like.
Keep your eye on the Prize, but don’t ignore the goons in the shadows.
The cases of the past as examples of the court condoning such human misery are examples that only focused on one group of Americans. Today’s court is going after any American that does not hold to their authoritarian/religious ideals of life. That is the difference. Thus I think Turtle Run is accurate in his assessment.
To this court, white is not enough to exempt you from their ideals.
I don’t think you mean this, but you could be undestood to mean that earlier Court decisions against human rights — those we all think WE should have, even if not specifically named in the C0nstitution, and even if we don’t always think “they”– the other– deserve … you could b understood to mean that those earlier decision don’t matter “because they only focused on one group of Americans.”
I agree that the present Court seems to be prepared to ignore all rights that mere people have, while zealously scouring the Constitution for Rights that business has. But “the Law” has never been a reliable protector of “people” as individual human beings, or even of decency as an abstraction.
Correct. I’m not saying those prior decisions do not matter or count as the Court being “more open to condoning human misery.” I’m saying their condoning in the prior examples were more focused as to who they were dropping the misery on too.
Today, being white will not protect you from that misery as in the past. That is what makes Turtle Run accurate in their statement.
thanks for the reply. being white, even, never did protect you from that misery. Blacks had less protection, to be sure, but I have been trying to suggest that until blacks and their supporters convince whites that civil rights and police brutality, precutorial malfeasance and indifferent Justices are NOT a black problem, but OUR problem, they will never solve their (our) problem
more recent but not so rccent cases Fleming v Nestor, Eugene Debs, HUAC,….well, the list is endless.
Julian Assange is recent, but I don’t see people in the streets protesting his treatment.
in any case injustice for ONE person is not negligible. People seem to fixate on “majority rule”.
morality is not a problem in statistics. apparently it is not even a problem in law.