Courts

'Perverse' And 'Illogical' Are The Best Things You Can Say About The Latest Clarence Thomas Opinion

What Sixth Amendment?

By  
on
Clarence Thomas Speaks At The Memorial Service For Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh, Pool)

Sonia Sotomayor dissented in this morning’s Shinn v. Ramirez decision. “This decision is perverse. It is illogical…” she wrote, proving she has a gift for understatement. The majority opinion penned by Clarence Thomas doesn’t really try to untangle its own circular logic, replacing reasoning with true crime monologuing like he’s Nancy Grace over here.

In short, the Sixth Amendment is more of a suggestion than a rule after this opinion, and denying a defendant the right to effective counsel gets a pass if the defendant is a bad enough dude in the eyes of the justices.

One of the defendants in this case was convicted off the back of allegations later debunked by a full and fair hearing. Alas, per Thomas, it’s “an affront to the State and its citizens who returned a verdict of guilt after considering the evidence before them” to allow courts to hear an ineffective assistance of counsel claim after the fact. Even when the postconviction counsel who had the opportunity to raise the claim was woefully ineffective themselves, failing the meet the minimum standards the state requires for capital case defense. So he will continue to sit and await execution for a murder he probably had nothing to do with. To protect the honor of the state… I guess.

Astoundingly, Thomas luridly repeats the allegations against this defendant as true, adopting a surreal post-truth vibe. At one point he tries to match wits with the dissent and only manages to make the dissent more credible.

Further, broadly available habeas relief encourages prisoners to “‘sandba[g]’” state courts by “select[ing] a few promising claims for airing” on state postconviction review, “while reserving others for federal habeas review” should state proceedings come up short.

To be clear, his argument is that people fighting for their lives on death row might intentionally botch their state review — which could save their life — to keep other arguments in the bag for a federal challenge. And that this is such a risk to efficient courts to justify shrugging off the Sixth Amendment completely. As though “innocent people on death row successfully raising ineffective assistance claims” will come up so frequently that it grinds the system to a halt. And if that wasn’t completely laughable… well, that would probably raise an even bigger issue!

Sponsored

As Sotomayor addressed this loony claim, “No habeas petitioner or postconviction counsel could possibly perceive a strategic benefit from failing to raise a meritorious trial-ineffectiveness claim in an available forum.”

Also from the dissent:

Rejecting the teachings of Martinez and Trevino, the Court adopts an irrational reading of §2254(e)(2). The Court begins with the uncontested proposition that, in the ordinary case, a habeas petitioner “‘must bear the risk of attorney error.’” Ante, at 11 (quoting Coleman, 501 U. S., at 753). From there, the Court leaps to the conclusion that a petitioner is at fault for not developing the evidentiary record on a trial-ineffectiveness claim even if that lack of development was the result of his postconviction counsel’s ineffective assistance.

Or another way to look at the majority opinion is a two-strikes system for counsel selection: if you have a constitutionally deficient attorney at trial, then postconviction counsel had better be up to snuff because if THAT lawyer is also ineffective you’re out of luck.

Sponsored

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

, , ,