Supreme Court Fails while Michigan Suburb Does Great
Oddly enough, yesterday I was really impressed with the court system in a little city that I expected to be unfair, and which was surprisingly well-handled and unbiased. I ended up being one of the last people to get my “informal hearing”, and not only did they agree with me that my own ticket was unfair, but they dismissed the tickets of quite a few people — basically anyone to whom the benefit of the doubt could rightfully be accorded. The system they used was balanced, fair and simple. I was both surprised, and got a good education in how to handle institutional resolution of small disputes.
But at the same time as a little suburb in Michigan did so well, Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion in this case, really REALLY ought to be ashamed of himself.
In a nutshell, the Supreme Court says that states don’t have to give prisoners access to evidence they might need to prove their innocence, even if the prisoner is covering the cost of the tests they want to do. The person in question is a man who’s spent more than 15 years in jail, and thinks new tests can prove his innocence, and his family is willing to pay for the tests — but the state won’t give him access to the evidence. Which just screams “someone’s afraid they screwed up” — If they’re sure he was guilty, what would be the harm in handing it over?
I understand state’s rights, really I do. But there’s no reason the Supreme Court couldn’t have compelled the state (Alaska in this case) to hand over the evidence in this case, without forcing them to change their laws. It would send the message that they were being idiots (which they are), without having the effect of compelling other states or creating a Federal precedent. Presumably Roberts, and the other soulless jerks who voted for state governments’ rights to let innocent people die in jail, understand this point as well.
Alaska is really the one guilty of the hideous end of the crime here, but by choosing not to step in, the Supreme Court has dealt a nasty blow to the core ideology of the U.S. Court system, which is to protect the freedom of the innocent.
Talk about seeing a tree and missing the forest. Inexcusable.
1 comment
[quote]In a nutshell, the Supreme Court says that states don’t have to give prisoners access to evidence they might need to prove their innocence, even if the prisoner is covering the cost of the tests they want to do[/quote]
This is not correct. I have read the ruling, and what the federal system is doing is asking the petitioner to use the procedures established in the state of conviction to obtain the same result, rather than asking the federal court system to make law in an area that the states (46/50) have legislated in (excepting the state in question, which has proposed legislation, however that is not relevant) or have procedures for dealing with new evidence.
The particular DNA test requested by the prisoner when he did pursue his case in the state courts was available at trial, and was not used because his attorney believed it would be harmful to his defense. This is an established principal – if evidence is available at your trial and you choose not to avail yourself of it, then it is never available as ‘new evidence’.
If the prisoner returns his request to the state, and asks for the new test (that was not available), it is likely his petition would be granted under the existing law of the state. That is what the ruling says.
(Let’s not go into the OTHER evidence in the case)