On Tuesday I reported the Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Cain in which the Court reversed a conviction because of the prosecutor's failure to disclose information to the defendant. As I said, though, the opinion is very short and, oddly, does not really pass judgment on the prosecutorial misconduct.
Today, Jonathan Turley has published a short comment on Justice's Thomas dissent. He also notes that the majority opinion (by Justice Roberts) "guaranteed that the case did not include language detailing the violations of the prosecutors" and suggested that the Chief Justice might have "use[d] his right to take a majority opinion to minimize the impact of a case."
As to Justice's Thomas dissent, Prof. Turley concludes that "Thomas engaged in what can only be described as judicial artistic license" in voting against reversing what he called "an outrageous conviction" which "was a travesty by any measure outside of a Tehran Sharia court."
You can read the comment here.
For more on the case go here.
And, as usual, you find the relevant documents, transcripts and links to more information in the SCOTUS blog.
I read Prof. Turley's post but did not see any substantive information as to why J. Thomas was wrong. Did I miss it? (As a practical matter 8 - 1 is persuasive, but by that "logic" (alone) I must find fault with J. Ginsburg this week.)
ReplyDelete