Gorsuch protests Supreme Court granting government ‘powerful’ new prosecution tools

Washington Examiner ^ | June 20, 2024 3:35 pm | Kaelan Deese

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The Supreme Court upheld a California woman’s drug trafficking conviction on Thursday that was based on an expert who testified that gangs rarely use “blind mules” to move drugs across the southern border, prompting a striking dissent from Justice Neil Gorsuch.

In a 6-3 decision that was not on the court’s usual ideological lines, the majority opinion in Diaz v. United States by Justice Clarence Thomas dismissed the argument that an expert witness for the prosecution had gone too far to describe defendant Delilah Guadalupe Diaz’s mindset when he said that most large-scale drug couriers were aware of what they were transporting.

Gorsuch, a Trump appointee known to break away from his Republican-appointed colleagues from time to time, dissented from the majority, arguing that the expert witness should have been inadmissible during Diaz’s trial.

He wrote that the “upshot” of this ruling leaves the government with “a new powerful tool in its pocket,” according to his dissent, which was joined by Democratic-appointed Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

“Prosecutors can now put an expert on the stand — someone who apparently has the convenient ability to read minds — and let him hold forth on what ‘most’ people like the defendant think when they commit a legally proscribed act. Then, the government need do no more than urge the jury to find that the defendant is like ‘most’ people and convict,” Gorsuch added.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

“Prosecutors can now put an expert on the stand — someone who apparently has the convenient ability to read minds — and let him hold forth on what ‘most’ people like the defendant think when they commit a legally proscribed act. Then, the government need do no more than urge the jury to find that the defendant is like ‘most’ people and convict,” Gorsuch added.

So much for "beyond reasonable doubt."

[griswold3]

Agreed

[ClearCase_guy]

This seems quite a bit like having a black defendant, and the prosecution's case is largely: "Well, you know how those people are." And the jury nods and finds the defendant guilty of ... whatever.

[Gene Eric]

The excerpted description of the courtroom circumstances seems overly simplistic.

[redheadedshannon]

This is why I have told everyone not to knock on Gorsuch too much when he appears to go astray. The closest he gets to a liberal stance is perhaps 18th century classical liberalism (which by today’s standards has been renamed libertarian-conservatism). This is one of those peculiar issues that pits law & order conservatives against limited government conservatives. The 2 big opinions were Thomas & Gorsuch. After reading the description, truly not sure which side I’d come down on. I think Gorsuch makes a great argument here. Strangely Ketanji Brown Jackson sided with most conservatives 🤔

[Freest Republican]

You almost had me convinced that despite the expert class showing us their intellectual destitution and moral bankruptcy time and again that perhaps my thoughts here could be off base.

Until the last line, I’m confident in disagreeing with any opinion put forth by Jackson being the right side.

[Freest Republican]

PS You should reply to more articles.

Your replies are well thought out, informative and generally right on the mark.

[Wuli]

It is one thing to use, and present as “evidence”, expert testimony about certain facts before the court, but “expert” testimony claiming to know what a defendent was thinking? Thnoas’ mind is beginning to fail. I think all the heat he is taking from the Libs is getting to him.