"Justice for Cory Maples," is the title of an editorial in today's Los Angeles Times.
When even conservative Supreme Court justices express sympathy for a death row inmate, it's a good bet that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. That's the case with Cory Maples, a convicted murderer from Alabama, who missed a deadline for an appeal because a notice sent to his two lawyers was sent back marked "return to sender." At oral arguments this week, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked the lawyer for the state of Alabama: "Mr. Maples has lost his right to appeal through no fault of his own through a series of very unusual and unfortunate circumstances.... Why push this technical argument?"
And:
Maples' story is a particularly egregious example of injustice by a state, and perhaps he will finally find relief. But vast numbers of questionable decisions involving convicted murderers never make it to the Supreme Court. That is because the court's primary objective in selecting cases for review is not the redress of individual grievances but the shaping of the law in general. (The justices do typically get involved when an execution is imminent, but that is no consolation for inmates who are kept on death row, ineligible for lighter punishment, because of official errors.)
It is unreasonable to expect the Supreme Court to address every injustice experienced by death row inmates. The surer way to eliminate those errors is to abolish capital punishment. Although the conventional wisdom is that repeal is politically unpopular, New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007 and Illinois followed suit this year. California should join them. According to a new Field Poll, although 68% of Californians want the death penalty to remain on the books, 48% say they would prefer that someone convicted of first-degree murder be sentenced to life without parole, compared with 40% who would choose execution.
The Toledo Blade carries the editorial, "Death by mail room?"
Mr. Maples would not normally be a sympathetic defendant. He has confessed to shooting two companions in Alabama in 1995 after a night of drinking.
Yet the affront to legal process was such that Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., usually a reliable vote for prosecutors in death penalty cases, called the facts here "a series of very unfortunate circumstances." He practically rebuked Alabama state Solicitor John Neiman, Jr., for pushing "this technical argument."
Indeed, Mr. Maples found sympathy across ideological lines, except for Justice Antonin Scalia. He took Alabama's side, making clear once again that he is less for the big picture of justice and more for guarding every jot and twitter of the law.
Justice is blind, it is said, but even on an ideologically divided court apparently not so blind in the face of appalling unfairness to remind most on the bench what business they are really in.
Earlier coverage of Maples v. Thomas, with links to all briefing and a transcript of the oral argument, begins at the link,
Comments