This is from:
TriStateHomePage.com: Convicted Murderer to Remain on Death Row
Posted on 04/23/2014 12:18:53 PM PDT by topher
Issues:
Does a trial court’s rejection of a non-testifying defendant’s request for a no-adverse-influence instruction during the sentencing phase of a capital punishment trial violate that defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when the defendant has pled guilty to all of the alleged crimes and aggravating circumstances?
Oral argument:
December 11, 2013
Court below:
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
(Excerpt) Read more at law.cornell.edu ...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-794_87ad.pdf
Not a Clickable Link since some browsers have trouble with PDF's.
Justice Scalia provided the opinion of the Majority, which overturns the ruling of the Sixth Court of Appeals. This is an interesting case, in my opinion, because it deals with the issue of self-incrimination. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges, but then refused to testify during the sentancing phase. This is why Sixth Court of Appeals reversed the Kentucky Supreme Court: they felt that the defendant was forced to incriminate himself.
(1) Blood on his clothing
(2) Blood on the door of his house
(3) The defendant pleaded guilty to the murder, rape, and kidnapping of a 16 year old girl (whose throat was slashed twice with a box cutter).
Probably the rape provided additional evidence linking the defendant's DNA to the crime.
Huh? What’s dat boy in the new suit talkin’ bout wid da judge up dere?
He pled guilty without bargaining for life without parole?
Maybe his appeal should have been based on inadequate legal representation.
Ultimately, a liberal Sixth Court of Appeals was overturned by the US Supreme Court.
My opinion is that since the defendant pleaded guilty, and there was SIGNIFICANT evidence that the defendant was guilty of the crime because of blood, etc, that it was prudent for the lower courts to have ruled the way they did.
One does not want someone who might slash the throat of a guard or another inmate in prison for life. The death penalty is probably warranted in this case because of the violent nature of the defendant.
There is no reason for additional people to die.
He was able to get outside as part giving this information. He later complained in Angola State Prison that he had been tricked.
This was a case where a guy ran into a young woman on a bicycle (disabling the bicycle) as an excuse to give her a ride.
He made the mistake of pulling knife on the girl, which she used on him, and cut him up very badly. After he killed her, he went over 100 miles away in New Orleans for medical treatment, claiming he had been mugged.
I have a great deal of respect for Scalia based on this decision...
Released today, April 23, 2014.
The writ of Certorari is denied (writ of Sixth Court of Appeals to the lower court(s))
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Majority. Joining Justice Scalia are Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Kagan.
Dissenting:
Justice Breyer, along with Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayer joining.
In the SCOTUS case, Robert Keith Woodall is referred to as the respondent and that Randy White, Warden, is referred to as the petitioner.
I don’t know what’s wrong with the argument that pleading guilty waves your 5th amendment rights.
The standard is that a minor error that would not have influenced the trial outcome can be overlooked.
The mere omission of the admonishment to not to take the fact that he didn’t testify on his own behalf during the sentencing phase is a minor error imho, but it also was in all likelihood not in the Jurors minds at all.
However, Certiorari should have been denied as it wasn’t SCOTUS worthy, and granting Certiorari and then ruling against makes it all the more harder for somebody else to raise that issue - perhaps in a more applicable case.
In the instant case, yes.
However, it's been clear for a while now that Federal Courts have been acting as if the AEDPA [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996] doesn't exist. What the lower Federal courts have been claiming is that death is such an important issue that all state court errors, even during sentencing, and even when the defendant has stipulated to guilt on all charges, are "unreasonable." If that were true, the limitation on habeas in AEDPA -- clearly intended by a nearly unanimous Congress -- would be rendered a legal nullity.
The Court today established a precedent that not every error by state courts is unreasonable, and that the limitations of habeas intervention by Federal courts intended by AEDPA has real teeth.
So I am assuming that SCOTUS found that this was not a violation of the 5th amendment’s protection against self incrimination?
I can’t even understand how the 6th circuit could have found otherwise (the 9th circuit I would have expected as much). I mean fed cruin out loud THE GUY PLED GUILTY!!!!!!
Because the SCOTUS has already ruled three times before that it doesn't.
The standard is that a minor error that would not have influenced the trial outcome can be overlooked.
In this case, sentencing outcome; and in this case, the issue before the Court is whether this was indeed minor.
However, Certiorari should have been denied as it wasn’t SCOTUS worthy, and granting Certiorari and then ruling against makes it all the more harder for somebody else to raise that issue - perhaps in a more applicable case.
It was SCOTUS worthy, because a Federal court and a Federal appeals court had already ruled against state courts clearly covered by the AEDPA, and because the Supreme Court needed to establish a precedent. See my previous post on AEDPA.
What the SCOTUS said was, failure to issue the instruction was "not unreasonable." Therefore, the Federal courts could not intervene via habeas, which is limited by the AEDPA of 1996.
You’re correct on all points. I misread something that lead me to believe that SCOTUS upheld a lower courts ruling that it didn’t matter. Thus I felt denying Certiorari.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.