An “Illogical,” “Perverse,” and Tragic Supreme Court Decision: Shinn vs. Jones

In a relatively obscure publication, I came across this May 23rd Supreme Court decision by serendipity. If one can use the term serendipity to describe something that makes your blood boil.

This decision will not affect a large group of people. I suppose that’s one reason there was no mainstream coverage. At least none I could find.

But each person affected by this ruling constitutes a tragedy. And it spoke volumes to me about the mindset of our current Supreme Court.

Here’s my layman’s summary of one of the two men immediately affected by the Court’s decision.

In Arizona, if you are convicted of a crime and believe your counsel was incompetent, you cannot file a direct appeal, but you can file for a postconviction review.

An Arizona resident, Barry Lee Jones, was accused of the rape and murder of his girlfriend’s four year old daughter. No one disputes that Jones was ill served by the failure of both the police and his trial counsel to conduct anything close to a proper investigation of the charges against him. Jones was convicted of murder and sentenced to die.

Jones was given a postconviction review. Unfortunately, he was given a postconviction lawyer who failed to expand or improve upon the faulty investigation of his trial lawyer. Jones’ hapless postconviction lawyer did request an independent investigator, but the request was improperly filed and thus never granted,

Jones found relief in Federal Court. He was finally given competent counsel who introduced overwhelming forensic, medical, and other evidence that established Jones’ innocence. The Federal Court overturned Jones’ conviction.

However, Arizona appealed the overturning of the conviction, arguing that in this case the Federal Court had overstepped its bounds in interfering with the legal process of a State Court.

The essential question was whether new evidence could be brought forward in Federal Court if it could be shown that the failure to introduce obviously exculpatory evidence in a State postconviction hearing was equivalent to having ineffective counsel. One might ask, how could it not?

Well, a very narrow and ultimately circular reading of the existing Federal statute apparently could entice Justices with certain frames of mind to vote to reverse the Federal Court’s action and to send the innocent Jones back to death row.

That’s what our current Supreme Court decided 6-3 (Clarence Thomas writing for the majority). “…a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.”

So, no new evidence allowed even if the failure to introduce evidence is exactly the reason the legal representation was ineffective. A Catch-22 of Kafkaesque proportions, to mix literary references. A negative loophole, if such a thing could exist.

The dissenting opinion, written by Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Kagan and Breyer,) pulls no punches:

“This decision is perverse. It is illogical…”

“To put it bluntly: Two men whose trial attorneys did not provide even the bare minimum level of representation required by the Constitution may be executed because forces outside of their control prevented them from vindicating their constitutional right to counsel.”

Sotomayor’s dissent concludes:

“Ultimately, the Court’s decision prevents habeas petitioners in States like Arizona from receiving any guaranteed opportunity to develop the records necessary to enforce their Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. For the subset of these petitioners who receive ineffective assistance both at trial and in state postconviction proceedings, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee is now an empty one. Many, if not most, individuals in this position will have no recourse and no opportunity for relief. The responsibility for this devastating outcome lies not with Congress, but with this Court.”

I am not a lawyer. But having read the majority and dissenting opinions, I am left with a sinking feeling that the majority of our Supreme Court has gone off the rails in the direction of caprice, sophistry, and cruelty.