Supreme Court makes it more difficult for prisoners to argue they had ineffective counsel
Source: CNN
The Supreme Court said Monday that state prisoners may not present new evidence in federal court in support of a claim that their post-conviction counsel in state court was ineffective in violation of the Constitution.
The ruling is a major defeat for two inmates on death row who said they had compelling claims that their state lawyers failed to pursue.
In addition, it will make it harder for inmates across the country to prevail on claims that they received ineffective counsel at the state court level in post-conviction proceedings.
The 6-3 opinion was penned by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Thomas suggested that allowing such claims to go forward would cause unnecessary delays, and he said that federal courts "must afford unwavering respect to the centrality of the trial of a criminal case in state court."
The three liberal justices dissented. In a stinging dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision "perverse" and said that the court had gutted precedent.
The majority opinion "reduces to rubble" many inmates' Sixth Amendment rights to the "effective assistance of counsel," she added.
"The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial," Sotomayor wrote. "Today, however, the court hamstrings the federal courts' authority to safeguard that right."
"It's hard to overstate how significant this technical ruling is for state prisoners trying to argue that they haven't received the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/politics/supreme-court-prisoners-federal-court-evidence/index.html
Holy crap!
This is nearly taking away the right to appeal!
Racist states, courts & public defenders are no longer held to perform at their best to defend the accused.
This is a DEATH SENTENCE for some!
50 Shades Of Blue
(9,920 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,167 posts)Walleye
(30,977 posts)Thomas is getting power drunk
secondwind
(16,903 posts)HOLY CRAP!
Thomas suggested that allowing such claims to go forward would cause unnecessary delays, and he said that federal courts "must afford unwavering respect to the centrality of the trial of a criminal case in state court."
FUCK YOU, CLARENCE!
TeamProg
(6,025 posts)to me, but I'm not a lawyer.
Have to wait and see.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)oldsoftie
(12,489 posts)Tommymac
(7,263 posts)Plus, the for profit prisons and their shareholders are suffering significant stock market losses, not enough prisoners to work the Corporate help desk support lines at .$50/hr.
Something must be done since non violent Marijuana prisoners are not as available as in the past due to it's decriminalization/legalization.
OldBaldy1701E
(5,088 posts)IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)whether they are guilty or not
llashram
(6,265 posts)advisors, miller, bannon, kurshner et al just packed our democracy into a corner. In November we better be like wild animals with nothing to lose coming out that corner...
elleng
(130,727 posts)PSPS
(13,579 posts)No need for unanimous juries especially for a black defendant.
peppertree
(21,600 posts)All that's needed is the installation of some Repug knuckle-dragger in '24, and we're no longer a democracy in any real sense of the word.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,290 posts)In Shinn v. Ramirez, the court ruled 6-3 that a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state post-conviction counsel.
In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the court ruled 9-0 that federal courts may not adopt an arbitration-specific rule conditioning a waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of prejudice.
The court released an order list from the May 19 conference. The justices did not grant review in any new cases.
https://twitter.com/scotusblog
https://twitter.com/scotusreporter
mpcamb
(2,868 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,739 posts)TeamProg
(6,025 posts)LeftInTX
(25,123 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,044 posts)and the SCOTUS incompetents approve legal incompetents.
ZonkerHarris
(24,205 posts)yardwork
(61,538 posts)So if new evidence surfaces they're not allowed to introduce it in the appeal. Disgraceful. Inhuman.
Ponietz
(2,935 posts)Ineffective lawyers fail to present evidence at trial. Duh.
Implication: Federal courts will no longer enforce the Bill of Rights in State courts.
PurgedVoter
(2,214 posts)I think we have a right and even a directive for the supreme court to be able to overturn everything from Regan till now.
It is clear that conservative and justice do not belong in the same title.
Ziggysmom
(3,394 posts)Look at their influence on Citizens United, too.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/03/in-audiobook-takeover-noah-feldman-lidia-jean-kott-explore-how-federalist-society-captured-supreme-court/
Auggie
(31,133 posts)also makes it easier for law enforcement and courts to imprison people, including the truly innocent.
world wide wally
(21,738 posts)LeftInTX
(25,123 posts)Bayard
(22,005 posts)We want these people executed PRONTO!
Samrob
(4,298 posts)How does this affect the Innocence Project, I wonder.
This SCOTUS is making sure law and order will not respected in the future. Bastards!
pfitz59
(10,302 posts)Saying they can't review and overturn States cases that violate Constitutional guarantees is absurd.