Did Glossip and the Oklahoma Attorney General Collusively Conceal Evidence to Win Their U.S. Supreme Court Case?
Paul Cassell has this post with the above title at the Volokh Conspiracy. No prizes for guessing the answer. Continue reading . . .
Category: Evidence
Supreme Court Allows OK AG to Take a Dive
A short-handed and divided U.S. Supreme Court today decided the case of Glossip v. Oklahoma, taking the side of convicted murderer Richard Glossip. The Oklahoma Attorney General had taken his side as well. CJLF filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of upholding the state court decision. The Court also appointed an amicus to make the argument the state AG should have made.
A bare majority of the Court held that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision did not rest on adequate and independent state courts and further found that Glossip had established his claim that the state had used and failed to correct perjured testimony, despite serious factual questions on the latter point. Rather than simply send the case back to state court for an evidentiary hearing, the Court ordered a new trial.
Justice Barrett concurred on the first point, partly concurred on the second, and dissented on the third. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the entirety. Justice Gorsuch was recused, having participated in the case during his time on the Tenth Circuit. Continue reading . . .
A One-Sided Battle of the Experts
Following up on Mike’s post earlier today. I obtained the federal district court opinion in Grayson v. Hamm, M.D. Ala. No. 2:24-cv-00376-RAH and uploaded it here. It makes interesting reading. Here is one passage:
The evidence here presents the classic battle of the experts, and a battle where one expert (Dr. McAlary) [the inmate’s] has no supporting case studies or other supporting medical testimony while the other (Dr. Antognini) [the state’s] does. And when considering these medical experts and their opinions in the context of the evidence on which they rely, Grayson’s expert finds himself without any real foundational support other than an unsupported opinion – no supporting articles or case studies, reliance upon highly questionable hearsay witness accounts, no support in Smith’s autopsy report for an upper airway obstruction that led to negative pressure pulmonary edema, untested reliance on proposed alternatives with their own set of risks and complications, unfounded theories of risks of mask leaks or monitoring device failures, and unfounded theories that the execution team cannot adequately monitor pulse oximeter or EKG devices or make the simple interpretations intended from them. As such, the Court finds Dr. Antognini and his opinions on these subjects more credible and persuasive than those of Dr. McAlary.
I find it appalling that so many medical professionals consider it perfectly okay to testify to junk science so long as it supports the preferred narrative. Continue reading . . .
Supreme Court Ducks Main Issue on Crime Lab Testimony
Today the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its opinion in the crime lab testimony case, Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899. Regrettably, the most important issue remains unanswered. Attorneys and lower courts still do not know if the lab notes taken by the analyst who performed the tests and related as the basis of an expert opinion by a different forensic scientist are “testimonial” so as to make the first analyst a “witness” whom the defendant has a constitutional right to confront. Continue reading . . .
Expert Testimony on What “Most People” Know
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 704, can an expert testify as to what “most people” would know in a given situation? Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Diaz v. United States, No. 23-14. The decision was 6-3, but no, not on “party” lines. Continue reading . . .
Harvey Weinstein Conviction Reversed
New York’s highest court reversed the conviction of the notorious Harvey Weinstein today, on the ground that evidence of other crimes was admitted beyond the limits allowed under New York’s landmark precedent in People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264 (1901). The court divided 4-3, with two judges recused and the replacements in the majority. That is, a majority of the court’s regular judges participating in the case voted to affirm. Continue reading . . .
Labs, Experts, and the Confrontation Clause
The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral argument in the case of Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899. Docket is here. Audio and transcript are here.
It has been 20 years since the high court overhauled its approach to the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses in Crawford v. Washington, and this is the fourth time it has addressed the application of that approach to expert testimony about lab results without the technician who did the tests being present and available for cross-examination.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703 and equivalent rules adopted in most states, an expert can give an opinion based on facts that would not otherwise be admissible in evidence if they are facts that would normally be relied on by experts in that field. How that squares with the Sixth Amendment has not yet been made clear. Continue reading . . .
The Co-Defendant Confession Conundrum
Criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled to confront the witnesses against them, a right that places a limit on the admission of out-of-court statements in addition to the general, exception-riddled rule of evidence against hearsay. But witnesses, for this purpose, do not include the defendant himself. So what do we do in a joint trial when a statement of one defendant incriminates them both? The Supreme Court sallied forth “once more unto the breach, dear friends” today in Samia v. United States, No. 22-196. Here is the holding from the syllabus:
Held: The Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession that did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction. Continue reading . . .
Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took up a case on the perennial knotty problem of the admissibility of co-defendant statements in joint trials. The case is Samia v. United States, No. 22-196. The out-of-court statement of one defendant is admissible against the defendant who made it, but generally not to incriminate other defendants. Continue reading . . .
SCOTUS Takes Up Three Crime-Related Cases
At its conference last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court took up three cases related to crime and law enforcement. One raises the question of whether a police officer’s failure to give Miranda warnings creates a civil liability, in addition to making the confession inadmissible in a criminal case. A second involves a challenge to a state’s method of execution, offering an alternative not authorized by state law. A third involves proceedings in federal district court to develop evidence for a habeas corpus petition without regard to whether the evidence could even be considered in deciding the case. Continue reading . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED