Yesterday, the Louisiana case Smith v. Cain received oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The transcirpt is available in Adobe .pdf format.
"Justices Rebuke a New Orleans Prosecutor," is Adam Liptak's report in today's New York Times.
Donna R. Andrieu, an assistant district attorney in New Orleans, had the unenviable task at the Supreme Court on Tuesday of defending her office’s conduct in withholding evidence from a criminal defendant. She made the least of it.
Her halting and unfocused presentation elicited one incredulous question after another. The argument culminated in back-to-back rebukes from Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice Kagan said she could not understand why the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office persisted in defending its conduct. “Did your office ever consider just confessing error in this case?” she asked.
Justice Sotomayor made a broader point about the office, which has repeatedly been found to have violated Brady v. Maryland, the 1963 Supreme Court decision that requires prosecutors to turn over favorable evidence to the defense.
“There have been serious accusations against the practices of your office, not yours in particular, but prior ones,” Justice Sotomayor said. “It is disconcerting to me that when I asked you the question directly, should this material have been turned over, you gave an absolute no.”
“That’s really troubling,” Justice Sotomayor added.
"Supreme Court seems ready to overturn La. murder conviction because of withheld statements," is the AP report via the Washington Post.
Incredulous Supreme Court justices on Tuesday repeatedly questioned why the New Orleans district attorney’s office never gave defense lawyers statements from the only witness in a murder trial that could have cast doubt on a death row inmate’s conviction of killing five people.
Justices were hearing an appeal from Juan Smith, who was convicted of five murders at a 1995 party. The only witness to identify Smith, however, gave inconsistent statements about whether he could recognize or identify Smith as one of the killers.
Prosecutors under former New Orleans district attorney Harry Connick never gave Smith’s lawyers the statements, which would have aided in his defense. Prosecutors are required to do this under Supreme Court precedent.
Several justices seemed surprised that Assistant District Attorney Donna Andrieu would even try to argue that the inconsistent statements would not have to be turned over under Brady.
The so-called Brady rights are named after the Supreme Court’s Brady v. Maryland case, which says prosecutors violate a defendant’s constitutional rights by not turning over evidence that could prove a person’s innocence.
“Surely it should have been turned over,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “Why don’t you give that up?”
This is the second time in two terms that the Supreme Court has dealt with Brady violations in the New Orleans prosecutor’s office. The high court earlier this year overturned a $14 million judgment given to a former death row inmate who was convicted of murder after the same New Orleans office withheld evidence in his trial. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a rare oral dissent, called the prosecutors’ actions “gross” and “deliberately indifferent.”
New Orleans prosecutors knew that this case was going to be heard by the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan said.
“Did your office ever consider just confessing error in this case?” Kagan asked.
Lyle Denniston posts, "Argument recap: Disaster at the lectern," at SCOTUSblog. Here's the beginned of his detailed account:
There may be many ways for a lawyer to realize that an argument before the Supreme Court is falling flat, but none can top this: a Justice asking if the counsel had ever considered simply forfeiting the case. That is what happened on Tuesday to Donna R. Andrieu, an assistant district attorney in New Orleans, as her argument lay all about her, in shambles. It is a heavy burden for a lawyer from that oft-criticized office to mount any defense of its prosecutions, but Andrieu repeatedly found ways to botch virtually every point as she argued Smith v. Cain (docket 10-8145).
The case is the second before the Court in the past year to raise deep questions about the way the Orleans Parish office has prosecuted criminal cases, over a good many years.. And, near the end of Andrieu’s troubled argument, she was reminded of that history by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who seemed to be wondering whether the D.A.’s staff there would ever learn. In both this Term’s case and last, the issue was whether the prosecutors had failed in their constitutional duty, under Brady v. Maryland (1963), to turn over evidence that could help lawyers defend their clients.
Today's New Orleans Times-Picayune reports, "U.S. Supreme Court justices question handling of evidence by Orleans Parish prosecutors." It's written by Bruce Alpert.
Skeptical Supreme Court justices ridiculed arguments Tuesday by the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office that a 1995 murder conviction wouldn't have been affected by disclosure that the star eyewitness earlier told police he could not identify any of the assailants. Attorneys for Juan Smith, convicted of five murders during a party on Roman Street in 1995, are asking the Supreme Court to order a new trial on grounds that the Orleans district attorney's office disregarded a 1963 Supreme Court ruling that prosecutors can't withhold evidence that could be favorable to the defendant.
The tough questioning of Assistant District Attorney Brady v. Maryland, capital punishment, death penalty, Harry Connick, Juan Smith, Louisiana, National District Attorneys Association, Orleans Parish District Attorney, Orleans Public Defenders, prosecutorial misconduct, SCOTUSblog, Smith v. Cain, Supreme Court seemed to indicate that justices are leaning toward granting Smith's request.
Andrieu conceded that the inconsistent statements of the key government witness should have been turned over to the defense, but argued the disclosure wouldn't have made a difference.
"How can you possibly know?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during hour-long oral arguments. "The jury is supposed to decide on the credibility of this witness."
Earlier coverage of Smith v. Cain begins at the link. Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct index. The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.
Comments