The extreme views of Justice Clarence Thomas were put into sharp relief yesterday when he stood alone in an 8-1 decision to overturn an outrageous conviction from New Orleans. In the face of shocking misconduct by prosecutors under Harry Connick Sr., even the most conservative members lined up to denounce the case . . . all but one.
The conviction of Juan Smith was a travesty by any measure outside of a Tehran Sharia court. Smith was convicted of five counts of murder based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Larry Boatner. However, during post-conviction proceedings, Smith’s lawyers discovered that Boatner had told police on the night of the killings that he “could not ID anyone because (he) couldn’t see faces.” Prosecutors concealed this and other evidence from Smith and his legal team. Chief Justice John Roberts (hardly someone known to be liberal on constitutional criminal law) wrote the majority opinion.
While Boatner testified at trial that he had been “face to face with Smith during the initial moments of the robbery,” he and other witnesses were repeatedly given pictures of Smith by the prosecutors and failed to identify him.
I knew Connick in my time in Louisiana and we have appeared together on problems. He is an engaging person and we discussed his pride in his son’s success, Harry Connick, Jr. However, his record in New Orleans is highly controversial and he was often accused of violating the basic rights of accused individuals — a culture within his office. In this, and other cases, his staff was accused of violating the requirements of disclosure established in 1963 in Brady v. Maryland, which requires a state turn over evidence that would be favorable to the defendant and “material” to his guilt or punishment.
The majority took only four pages to overturn the case — though I will note that Roberts guaranteed that the case did not include language detailing the violations of the prosecutors and further expanding on the themes and use of Brady. Chief Justices will sometimes use their right to take a majority opinion to minimize the impact of a case. Roberts clearly did not want to expand on Brady and quickly dispensed with the case. His opinion fails to note the recidivist record of this office and concludes:
Because we hold that Boatner’s undisclosed statements
alone suffice to undermine confidence in Smith’s conviction, we have no need to consider his arguments that the other undisclosed evidence also requires reversal under Brady.
Given the abusive record, the Roberts decision reads like a judicial haiku — particularly when compared to cases involving free exercise or federalism or the second amendment where the Court offers long factual and legal explorations of the case.
Thomas,however, was neither brief nor measured. He wrote a 19 page dissent insisting that Boatner was a fine witness and there was no reason to reverse. Ignoring the record showing repeated denials by Boatner that he could identify the man, Thomas engaged in what can only be described as judicial artistic license in claiming “[m]uch of the record evidence confirms that, from the night of the murders through trial, Boatner consistently described — with one understandable exception — the first perpetrator through the door, that Boatner’s description matched Smith.” Thomas’ opinion seems not only detached from controlling precedent but from reality.
While never revealed to the defense before trial, notes from the detective contain a statement that Boatner told him that he “could not … supply a description of the perpetrators other then [sic] they were black males.” Five days after the crime, Boatner again said he “could not ID anyone because [he] couldn’t see faces” and “would not know them if [he] saw them.”
The record also shows police repeatedly showing witnesses Smith’s picture in 14 separate photo arrays to get someone to ID Smith. They were unsuccessful until Boatner finally changed his account.
What is most striking is that this is the same office that produced the outrage in the 1995 case, Kyles v. Whitley, where Harry Connick Sr.’s office concealed evidence. Yet, there is still no discussion of any punishment for the prosecutors responsible for this latest abuse.
For his part, Thomas would create a standard that would be virtually impossible for any defendant to satisfy. What Thomas calls a “’reasonable probability’ that the jury would have been persuaded by the undisclosed evidence” was clearly not met to his satisfaction in a case where the only witness said that he could not identify Smith. Here Boatner was offered for his ability to identify the defendant and previously said that he could not identify the defendant. Yet, Thomas views that as falling below any reasonable probability that it would have persuaded the jury. It is unclear what it would take for Thomas sort of a Perry Mason moment of the witness screaming, “I did it, I did it and I glad I did it.”
We continue to struggle with the problem of prosecutors withholding evidence in criminal cases. While Roberts made sure that this case would not expand on existing precedent in support of such defendants, the case goes into the win column of constitutional criminal law.
Here is the opinion: 10-8145
OS,
Oh yeah. Edwin Edwards is quite a character. Of course, to paraphrase Winston Wolfe, being a character doesn’t mean one has character.
“Gene might say she is crazy.”
Gene might say, “She should be careful so she doesn’t get any on her.”
mahtso,
Argumentum verbosium is an informal logical fallacy in itself, however, the best criticism is that Thomas’ dissent defied evidentiary logic.
anon nurse, Harry Connick retired years ago. He is 86. I became more familiar with NOLA last summer when my daughter was working there. She liked it so much she is going back for a different job for part of the summer. The other half will be in DC. She really loves DC. Gene might say she is crazy.
Gene, do you remember when Kirk Fordice was governor of Mississippi and someone asked him about ‘Fast Eddie’ who was then governor or Louisiana? Fordice was quoted as referring to his neighbor governor as, “That old crook.” Sad thing was, he was right.
I heard that Fast Eddie was released from Federal prison to a halfway house about a year ago. Funny thing, Edwin Edwards started out in life with the intention of becoming a preacher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards
“The majority took only four pages to overturn the case — though I will note that [CJ] Roberts guaranteed that the case did not include language detailing the violations of the prosecutors and further expanding on the themes and use of Brady ….”
How could the CJ have done so? Surely the other Justices were free and able to write concurring opinions if they wanted to.
“[J] Thomas, however, was neither brief nor measured. He wrote a 19 page dissent insisting that Boatner was a fine witness and there was no reason to reverse.”
To me, the length of the dissent is a poor basis for criticism because (and correct me if I am wrong) J. Thomas was obligated to consider arguments that the majority did not reach.
anon nurse,
Oh yes, I meant the judges too. New Orleans is a sewer of political corruption and has been since long before I was born. It didn’t get broken over night. It takes time to breed that kind of injustice. A friend of mine once opined that it has something to do with the city evolving in a swamp. “Alligators, mosquitoes, disease. Nothing good comes out of the swamp,” he said. He may have been on to something.
Gene,
What about some of the judges? (I ask with a particular person in mind…) Well said, of course.
As to Thomas and convoluted reasoning?
Is anyone really surprised?
anon nurse said, “Both Thomas and Harry Connick Sr. need to go…”
Actually the best thing you could do with the LE community in New Orleans (and Jefferson Parish) – from prosecutors down to cops and meter maids – would be to bulldoze the whole lot of them into the Mississippi and start with a clean slate. New Orleans is one of the few cities that could give DC lessons on corruption, conflicts of interest and ineptitude. If it were not for the food, there would be no reason any sane person would go there.
Maybe Thomas is still afraid of disagreeing with the white man….There has to be a reason….This one is mind boggling…..
Both Thomas and Harry Connick Sr. need to go…
On Connick vs. John Thompson:
http://www.witnesstoinnocence.org/view_news.php?US-Supreme-Court-rules-against-WTI-member-John-Thompson-166
Excerpt:
The 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas shielded the New Orleans district attorney’s office from being held liable for the mistakes of its prosecutors. The evidence of their misconduct did not prove “deliberate indifference” on the part of then-Dist. Atty. Harry Connick Sr., Thomas said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized her disapproval by reading her dissent in the courtroom, saying the court was shielding a city and its prosecutors from “flagrant” misconduct that nearly cost an innocent man his life.
“John Thompson spent 14 years isolated on death row before the truth came to light,” she said. He was innocent of the crimes that sent him to prison and prosecutors had “dishonored” their obligation to present the true facts to the jury, she said.
In the past, the high court has absolved trial prosecutors from any and all liability for the cases they bring to court. The key issue in the case of Connick vs. John Thompson was whether the district attorney could be held liable for a pattern of wrongdoing in his office and for his failure to see to it that his prosecutors followed the law.
In 1999, when all his appeals had failed on his conviction for the murder of a hotel executive, Thompson was scheduled to be put to death. But a private investigator hired by his lawyer found a blood test in the police lab that showed the man wanted for a related carjacking had type B blood, while Thompson’s was type O. (end of excerpt)
Mike, you will not finding me disagreeing. That is why he is so dangerous to the Court and to the body politic in general.
I’m going to offer the minority opinion here and say that Thomas is absolutely convinced that he is correct. This is not the case of someone who is expressing a draconian political philosophy, understanding its impact. This is a man with such limited vision that he will always take the side of authority/power against the individual. He does so because he is essentially incapable of empathy for those he puts outside of his circle of concern. He is so dangerous because his conscience, if indeed he has one, is informed by only his own understanding and seeing what he expects will be there. I would view this as a serious Personality Disorder.
Impeach Thomas
Justice Thomas is more than just an incompetent jurist. He is a bought and sold Jurist. I am just wondering why his corporate bosses wanted this guy in jail in the first place??
Justice Thomas is the icon of the deranged.
His dissent is verification of that once again.
At least the Court reached the proper decision in this case, albeit watered down as Professor Turley pointed out.
Perhaps this marks the beginning of the era where the other justices will stop kowtowing to Justice Thomas.
IMO they have done so in the past in order to put up a false front to cover up the wobbles in our system at this time.
I’m not a historian of the court but I know there have always been some number of political hacks on the court and some embarrassing opinions but have we ever had a court dominated by these things? Assuming we survive & rational people write history what will future generations think of us for tolerating this?
We also continue to struggle as a country with this shameful angry man in a position of power he does not understand. Impeachment is the remedy.
And, as I’m sure you will recall from the John Thompson case last March, Justice Thomas, who wrote for the majority there, ruled that Thompson could not bring civil suit against the very same prosecutor’s office at issue here because he could not demonstrate a “pattern” of Brady violations. Could not demonstrate a pattern of Brady violations? From this DA’s office? Seriously? They have Brady violations coming out of their ears.
That Thomas can make these claims with a straight face is beyond belief. I’m going on record to say Thomas just might be one of the worst – if not THE worst – jurist to ever put on the robe.
You can see my rant here:
http://www.theurbanpolitico.com/2012/01/worst-judge-ever.html