Supreme Court to Hear Murder Cases

AP ^ | 10/11/6 | PETE YOST

[SmithL]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday debated the case of an accused murderer whose conviction was thrown out because the victim's family wore buttons bearing a picture of their loved one to the trial.

The justices waded into issues of defendants' rights, struggling with the question of whether the buttons visible to the jury in the case of Matthew Musladin denied him a fair trial or were a harmless expression of grief. The state of California is seeking to reinstate Musladin's conviction.

In another case, the justices considered when a judge's discretion to impose additional time behind bars violates a convict's constitutional rights.

In the buttons case, some of the justices seemed uncertain about how to proceed.

There is "a pretty darn good argument" the buttons risked the defendant's right to a fair trial, said Justice David Souter. At the same time, Souter asked, "what am I to make" of the fact that not a single court has ruled on a similar set of circumstances? Souter questioned where the constitutional line would be drawn.

What if the buttons said "Hang Musladin?" Souter asked.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the message of the buttons in the Musladin case did not point to the defendant as the killer. Scalia said the circumstances might be different if the victim's family had worn the buttons to a sentencing phase of a trial where the defendant had already been convicted.

[SmithL]

Of course it was the murder-lovers on the 9th circus that overturned Musladin's conviction.

[Jaysun]

This is absurd. Are juries supposed to be "shielded" from any likeness of the victims?

[BenLurkin]

What if the buttons said "Hang Musladin?" Souter asked.

They didn't -- so lets' stick to the point.

[onyx]

My exact thought.

[BenLurkin]

Of course no-one speaks that way to SCOTUS.

I know I wouldn't have the guts . . . 8^)

[kingu]

District Attorneys across the nation should have photos of the victims in frames atop their tables, facing the jury during every murder trial. The concept that the victim is not permitted to be at the trial in at least photo form is completely inane.

[onyx]

With Souter or Darth-Bader-Gins, I would be tempted!

[MBB1984]

This is so absurd it is bizarre. Souter continually amazes me with his love for murderers and other criminals. It is getting to the point where Congress should restrict the Supreme Court's ability to review certain cases.

[Jaysun]

This is so absurd it is bizarre. Souter continually amazes me with his love for murderers and other criminals. It is getting to the point where Congress should restrict the Supreme Court's ability to review certain cases.

The terrible thing about Souter is that he's not even 70 yet. We might have to endure his stupidity for another 20 years.

I'd love to see Congress do something about the Courts, but they don't seem to want to. Maybe we should fax them a copy of the Constitution.

[geezerwheezer]

Judge Souter's questions are legitimate to ask and I can't find fault with this. He will probably vote to overturn the ninth as they reversed the conviction based on what Souter was asking about. You have to admit it is an interesting idea, but as he went on to say, without any constitutional basis to uphold the 9th's verdict.

[George W. Bush]

There is "a pretty darn good argument" the buttons risked the defendant's right to a fair trial, said Justice David Souter. At the same time, Souter asked, "what am I to make" of the fact that not a single court has ruled on a similar set of circumstances? Souter questioned where the constitutional line would be drawn.

More confused than ever. And considers himself more infallible than the Pope.