“I Don’t Have to Take Any Time for This”

The Supreme Court will once again address alleged Brady violations by the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office.  Earlier this week, the Court granted certiorari in Smith v. Cain (No. 10-8145), in which Smith alleges that the prosecutor suppressed a veritable boatload of exculpatory evidence in his murder trial.  I’ve only read the cert. petition, which obviously has a partisan slant, but on the face of things it appears there was some pretty egregious police and prosecutor misconduct.  And, of course, there is a well-documented history of Brady violations in the DA’s office in New Orleans, including in the Supreme Court’s  earlier case of Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).  Earlier this very term, the Court again dealt with discovery issues in the Big Easy in Connick v. Thompson, declining to find civil liability for what even the state conceded were violations of Brady.  Indeed, according to the cert. petition, the very assistant district attorney who prosecuted Smith later had his law license suspended for a Brady violation in another case.

I’m a little surprised the Court took Smith, both because it has not been through federal habeas (it’s coming directly up from the state court system) and because it’s basically an “error-correction” case — at least as framed by the cert. petition, the case does not really present any questions of law, but will instead require the justices to roll up their sleeves and sort through a rather complex evidentiary record to produce a case-specific, fact-intensive ruling.  On the other hand, for reasons that are not clear to me, this seems to be precisely the way that the Court has engaged with Brady ever since United States v. Bagley in 1985.  See, e.g., Kyles; Cone v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1769 (2009).

In some ways, I’m more interested to hear what the Court has to say about a collateral procedural issue  in Smith that received relatively brief treatment in the petition, but that is also expressly encompassed by the cert. grant.  Smith claims that the Louisiana courts violated his due process rights by rejecting all of his Brady-type claims without finding any facts or providing any explanation.

Continue Reading“I Don’t Have to Take Any Time for This”

Marquette Law Review Article Sparks Debate on Use of Dictionaries to Decide Legal Cases

A recent article in the Marquette Law Review was featured in Adam Liptak’s “Sidebar” column for the New York Times earlier this week.  Liptak wrote about the increasingly common citation of dictionaries in Supreme Court opinions:

A new study in The Marquette Law Review found that the justices had used dictionaries to define 295 words or phrases in 225 opinions in the 10 years starting in October 2000. That is roughly in line with the previous decade but an explosion by historical standards. In the 1960s, for instance, the court relied on dictionaries to define 23 terms in 16 opinions.

Liptak notes various objections to the practice.  For instance, dictionaries were not written for the purpose of supplying precise legal definitions, and the variety of different meanings suggested by the many available dictionaries creates opportunities for “cherry picking.”  He adds,

The authors of the Marquette study, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier and Samuel A. Thumma, said the justices had never really said precisely what dictionary definitions were doing in legal opinions. They urged the justices to explain “when and how dictionaries should be used, how a specific dictionary should be chosen and how to use a dictionary for interpretation.”

Continue ReadingMarquette Law Review Article Sparks Debate on Use of Dictionaries to Decide Legal Cases

Another View on the Merits of Judge Sumi’s Decision

It should come as no surprise that Professor Fallone and I disagree on Judge Sumi’s decision in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald. I particularly take issue with his suggestion that criticism of the decision is the product of “sloppy lawyering.” In my view, that characterization is unfair and inaccurate. Nor is the legal – as opposed to political – criticism of Judge Sumi based on something other than the merits of this particular case. I have commented extensively on this case in the national and local media and have refused  to question Judge Sumi’s character or competence. Of course she did her job. But there are multiple reasons for “fuss” about the merits of the decision. Let’s try one.

Criticism of the notion that a court may invalidate an act of the legislature (as opposed to acts of local units of government subordinate to the legislature) is not based on “sixty year old” precedents. The Zimmerman and Goodland cases go to whether a court can enjoin publication of an enacted bill. That’s a different issue.

The idea that a court may not invalidate an act of the legislature for failure to comply with a statutory (as opposed to constitutional) restriction on legislative procedure is based on a long and unbroken string of cases beginning with McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 407, 411-12, 50 N.W. 185 (1891) and most recently restated in the very case that Judge Sumi now relies on, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. Department of Administration, 2009 WI 79. The rationale for the rule was stated in State ex rel. La Follette v. Stitt, 114 Wis.2d 358, 338 N.W.2d 684 (1983):

Courts are reluctant to inquire into whether the legislature has complied with legislatively prescribed formalities in enacting a statute.  This reluctance stems from separation of power and comity concepts, plus the need for finality and certainty regarding the status of a statute, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 215, 82 S.Ct. 691, 709, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962).  Although since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) courts have had the authority to review acts of the legislature for any conflict with the constitution, courts generally consider that the legislature’s adherence to the rules or statutes prescribing procedure is a matter entirely within legislative control and discretion, not subject to judicial review unless the legislative procedure is mandated by  the constitution.  73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes, sec. 49, p. 296.  If the legislature fails to follow self-adopted procedural rules in enacting legislation, and such rules are not mandated by the constitution, courts will not intervene to declare the legislation invalid.  The rationale is that the failure to follow such procedural rules amounts to an implied ad hoc repeal of such rules.

Id. at 364-365.

Thus, even if – as everyone agrees – the Open Meetings law applies to the legislature – failure to comply with it may not result in invalidation of a legislative action (as opposed to, say, sanctions against individual legislatures). Indeed, the very case relied on by Judge Sumi for the proposition that the Open Meetings Law applies to the legislature –State ex rel. Lynch v. Conta, 71 Wis.2d 662, 239 N.W.2d 313 (1976) – recognizes that very distinction. It could issue declaratory relief as to the actions of individual legislatures and impose forfeitures upon them because it was not interfering with “the functions or separate power of the legislative branch,” id. at 698, and expressly stated that “[t]he case is accepted, as not contrary to separation of powers, in that it concerns application of the forfeiture penalty to members of a body, not to the branch of government.”  Id. at 700.

Ed – and Judge Sumi – want to suggest that this line of cases was somehow broken by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. As I explained on my personal blog, Judge Sumi flatly misstates what happened in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Ed agrees, but argues that what he calls a “regrettable error” has no impact on the validity of the analysis. I respectfully disagree. Here’s why.

Continue ReadingAnother View on the Merits of Judge Sumi’s Decision