Also yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected one California death case with an innocence claim. It granted cert in a Michigan case involving double jeopardy, and requested additional briefing in an Alabama death case.
Let's begin with an excerpt of Lyle Denniston's SCOTUS Blog post, "Court scuttles photo ruling; grants 3 cases."
The third granted case, Renico v. Lett (09-338), tests whether it violates double jeopardy to stage a new trial after a state judge declared a mistrial after the jury foreman said the jurors were not going to be able to reach a verdict. The Sixth Circuit Court found jeopardy in that circumstance, rejecting the conflicting view of the Michigan Supreme Court.
In a highly unusual order, the Court asked state officials in Alabama to respond to a rehearing request in a pauper’s criminal case — Melson v. Allen (09-5373). The case involves Robert Bryant Melson, who in 1994 shot and skilled three employees and wounded a fourth while robbing a Popeye’s restaurant in Gadsden, Ala. He was sentenced to death. The case has had a lengthy journey through federal and state courts, and resulted, most recently, in the Supreme Court’s denial of review of his latest petition on Oct. 5.
In that petition, Melson sought to raise the issue of whether a habeas plea must offer evidence of attorney dishonesty or mental illness in order to excuse the failure to file the plea within the one-year filing deadline set by federal law. Eight days after the Supreme Court had denied review of that question in Melson’s case, the Court agreed to hear nearly the same issue in Holland v. Florida (09-5327) — a case now scheduled for oral argument on March 1. After that grant, Melson’s counsel sought rehearing, and review of his case or, in the alternative, a move to hold his case pending the outcome in Holland. That is the request to which the state of Alabama has now been asked to file a reponse within 30 days.
As it has done in other cases, the Court on Monday once more refused to settle the question of whether it is unconstitutional to execute an individual who has a strong claiim of innocence to murder. The Court simply denied review in the seventh appeal filed before the Justices by a California death-row inmate, Kevin Cooper. He is the central figure in one of the most controversial murder cases in the state in recent years. The two sides directly involved take diametrically opposing views of what the evidence used, or not used, at the trial means. He was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1983 murder of three members of a family and a neighbor boy in Chino Hills, Calif., and the attempted murder of that family’s eight-year-old son. Cooper’s latest petition was 09-363 (Cooper v. Wong).
The New York Times carries, "California: Inmate’s Appeal Is Rejected," by John Schwartz, as part of its National Briefing.
The United States Supreme Court rejected the appeal of Kevin Cooper, a California death row inmate convicted of killing four people in 1983. Mr. Cooper and his supporters argue that others committed the murders and that evidence against him was planted by the police. Mr. Cooper was hours away from execution in 2004 when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ordered new DNA tests. A federal judge ruled that the new tests did not exonerate him, and appeals courts have upheld the decision. Mr. Cooper’s supporters insisted that the conditions for the testing rendered them useless, and a 103-page dissent in the Ninth Circuit’s decision to deny Mr. Cooper a rehearing earlier this year stated that “the State of California may be about to execute an innocent man.”
"Supreme Court refuses to hear death row inmate's appeal," is the title of Carol Williams' report in the Los Angeles Times.
During Cooper's 1984-1985 trial, the jury heard conflicting accounts of Josh Ryen's recollection of the night of the attack. Deputies who spoke with the boy immediately after he was evacuated by helicopter from the gory murder scene testified that Josh initially reported that three white men were in his house and that a television news broadcast showing a wanted poster of Cooper, who is black, prompted him to say Cooper wasn't the killer. Videotaped excerpts of Josh speaking with a psychiatrist were also played for the jury; on the tapes, Josh recalls only one intruder and can't tell the man's race or other details.
Defense lawyers for Cooper argued at his trial and in more than a dozen appellate proceedings that evidence suppressed or destroyed by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department pointed to three white men as the perpetrators, including a convicted contract killer.
"Evidence that we discovered after trial shows that Kevin is innocent of the crime for which he is now sentenced to die," Cooper's lead defense attorney, Norman Hile, said in vowing to continue the fight to halt his client's execution despite the high court denial.
The state Attorney General's office argued in its brief to the Supreme Court that Cooper's conviction has been repeatedly upheld by lower courts because the evidence of his guilt is "overwhelming."
The Kevin Cooper Defense Committee, a coalition of death penalty opponents, said the Supreme Court's refusal to review Cooper's case put California on a path "to do what Texas did in the Cameron Todd Willingham case -- execute an innocent man."
Willingham was put to death in 2004 for setting the house fire that killed his three children.
The Contra Costa Times has, "U.S. Supreme Court denies Kevin Cooper's appeal," by Will Bigham.
Cooper's legal team also highlighted a 103-page opinion written this year by a federal judge who dissented in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' rejection of Cooper's request for additional testing.
Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher said the state "may be about to execute an innocent man" and blasted the review of evidence in Cooper's case. His dissent was joined by four other judges.
Cooper's legal team on Monday accused police and prosecutors of destroying evidence, planting false evidence, failing to turn over evidence favorable to Cooper, falsifying lab reports and other misconduct.
A news release issued by the Kevin Cooper
Defense Committee is here.
Comments