Adam Liptak previewed the term's cases in, "Supreme Court Term Offers Hot Issues and Future Hints," in the Sunday New York Times.
The new Supreme Court term, which begins Monday, includes cases on some of the most contested issues of the day, including protests at military funerals, illegal immigration, support for religious schools, violent video games, DNA evidence and prosecutorial misconduct.
The term’s arguments and decisions will be scrutinized for insights into the thinking of the court’s newest member, Justice Elena Kagan, and for hints about how the court will rule when even more highly charged cases reach it, probably in a year or two, on federal health care legislation, same-sex marriage, the treatment of gay members of the armed services and the recent Arizona law giving the police there greater authority to check the immigration status of people they stop.
And:
In a pair of cases involving death row inmates, the justices will consider what an inmate may do to try to establish his innocence and what legal recourse is available to exonerated prisoners.
The first question is presented in Skinner v. Switzer, No. 09-9000, an appeal from Hank Skinner, an inmate in Texas who is seeking access to DNA evidence that he says could prove his innocence. In March, the court granted a stay of execution less than an hour before Mr. Skinner was to be put to death in the murder of his girlfriend and her two sons.
Mr. Skinner seeks to test blood, fingernail scrapings and hair found at the scene of the killings. He maintains that he was sleeping on a sofa in a stupor induced by vodka and codeine when the killings took place on Dec. 31, 1993.
Prosecutors say he is making his request too late. They add that testing would be pointless because “no item of evidence exists that would conclusively prove that Skinner did not commit the murder.”
The case concerning a prisoner’s exoneration is Connick v. Thompson, 09-571, which arose from a $14 million jury award in favor of a former inmate who was freed after prosecutorial misconduct came to light.
The former inmate, John Thompson, sued officials in the district attorney’s office in New Orleans, saying they had not trained prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor there failed to give Mr. Thompson’s lawyers a report showing that blood at a crime scene was not his.
Mr. Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 in solitary confinement. He once came within weeks of being executed.
The National Law Journal reports, "On the High Court's Fall Docket, Few Blockbusters -- but Plenty to Watch," by Marcia Coyle.
The Court added several criminal-related cases to its docket with its first orders list of the new term on Sept. 28, among them, Kentucky v. King. In that case, the justices will examine when police can enter a residence without a warrant because of "exigent circumstances" which they created.
The justices also will decide whether a three-judge district court had jurisdiction to issue a prisoner release order to relieve overcrowding in Schwarzenegger v. Plata. They return to two recent issues: the scope of the confrontation clause inMichigan v. Bryant and the use of a civil rights action to gain access to evidence for DNA testing in Skinner v. Switzer.
And the liability of a district attorney for failure to train subordinates on so-called Brady obligations is at issue in Connick v. Thompson. John Thompson spent more than a decade on Louisiana's death row until his lawyers uncovered exculpatory evidence, never revealed by the prosecution, that led to a retrial and his acquittal.
"New Supreme Court term begins; Kagan to recuse from dozens of cases," is the CNN post by Bill Mears.
DEATH PENALTY- Skinner v. Switzer (09-9000) (arguments Wednesday, October 13)
AT ISSUE: A Texas death row inmate claiming innocence is demanding authorities conduct more thorough DNA testing of evidence gathered at the crime scene.
THE CASE: Henry "Hank" Skinner, 47, was convicted of the New Year's Eve 1993 killings of his live-in girlfriend and her two adult sons. The justices issued a stay less than 30 minutes before his scheduled March 24 execution.
THE ARGUMENTS: In a recent death row interview, Skinner told CNN that if he loses this appeal, an innocent man will be put to death. He claims that new analysis of certain untested DNA samples would clear him and determine the real killer. The state says he is not entitled to testing of evidence that was not analyzed before his 1995 trial. It also claims the wealth of forensic evidence available -- evidence reviewed repeatedly by various state and federal courts -- points to his undeniable guilt.
IMPACT: What if an executed prisoner is later found to be innocent? Other inmates have recently pushed "actual innocence claims," prompted by growing use of DNA testing on old evidence. A court ruling could make such claims easier or harder to pursue in the future.
SCOTUS Blog has a new look this year. "Argument preview: Court to consider liability for DA’s offices on Brady violations," by Jessica Fitts, examines the Louisiana civil case that grows from prosecutorial misconduct, Connick v. Thompson.
On October 6, in Connick v. Thompson, the Court will consider whether a district attorney’s office may be held liable for failing to train its prosecutors on Brady violations, notwithstanding the fact that the office has no history of prior violations.
Earlier coverage of the Hank Skinner case begins with this post; Connick v. Thompson, here.
Comments