Access to Justice

  • June 18, 2013
    Guest Post

    by G. Ben Cohen. Mr. Cohen is OF COUNSEL at The Capital Appeals Project. Cohen was VISITING LITIGATION COUNSEL at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute in 2011.

    On April 29, 2013, after briefing and oral argument on whether the State’s failure to fund counsel for a defendant should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes, five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court turned a blind eye in Boyer v. Louisiana to the funding crisis in Louisiana’s public defender system and declined to address the seven year wait between Jonathan Boyer’s arrest and trial. On Boyer’s heels comes another case underscoring the unconscionable harms of the Bayou State’s decimated criminal justice system – which has depended on traffic tickets to fund the defense function.

    On June 20, 2013 the Supreme Court will decide whether to grant certiorari in Michael Garcia v. Louisiana.  The public defender office could not afford to adequately provide separate capital representation to Mr. Garcia and his two co-defendants.  By law, however, the Public Defender could not represent all three defendants himself.  Even the prosecutor informed the trial court at Mr. Garcia’s very first hearing that the multiple representation might pose a conflict of interest, but the judge left the Public Defender to work it out. 

    The Public Defender assigned all the capitally-certified attorneys from his office, including himself, to represent Mr. Garcia, and assigned lawyers who were not certified to represent defendants facing the death penalty to represent the two co-defendants. This refusal to hire outside counsel saved the public defender office from going bankrupt.  It also prevented the state from seeking death against the two other defendants.  But it meant that Mr. Garcia’s lawyer chose him as the only defendant against whom the State could seek the death penalty.

  • May 30, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Brandon L. Garrett and Lee Kovarsky. Garrett is a professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law and Kovarsky is an assistant professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law. They are co-authors of a habeas corpus casebook, Federal Habeas Corpus: Executive Detention and Post-conviction Litigation, which was just published by Foundation Press.

    This week, the Supreme Court handed down habeas decisions on two different gateways through procedural obstacles to federal habeas review. The first decision involved an “innocence” gateway. In McQuiggan v. Perkins, the Court held that, despite a constitutional claim’s untimeliness, a federal court could reach the claim’s merit if there exists a reasonable chance that the inmate was wrongfully convicted. The second gateway is a “bad lawyering” gateway. In Trevino v. Thaler, the Court held that inadequate state post-conviction representation can excuse the default of a trial-phase ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claim if, as a practical matter, a state post-conviction proceeding was the only forum for a state inmate to raise it. In each case, the Court avoided mechanical readings of statutes or precedents in favor of interpretations that reflect the byzantine reality of modern habeas corpus review.

    In the “innocence gateway” case, Floyd Perkins was serving a life sentence in Michigan. Perkins argued that he had new evidence proving his innocence: witnesses would say that another man was the killer, that the other man had bragged he had done it, and that the other man was trying to wash blood-stained clothes the day after the killing. Perkins had been convicted largely based on testimony of the other man, as well as two others who said they overheard Perkins admit his guilt. Perkins argued that his new evidence of innocence entitled him to merits review of his IAC claim, which was untimely under the one-year federal limitations period. He could not, however, show that he had acted with “due diligence” in bringing this evidence to the attention of the judge. He argued that new evidence of innocence should excuse the untimely filing, notwithstanding the technical defects in the petition.

  • May 6, 2013

    by John Schachter

    Lest anyone still doubt corporate influence (or is it control?) over the nation’s high court, Adam Liptak’s nearly 3,000-word article in yesterday’s New York Times should resolve any uncertainties. The Court’s business rulings, Liptak notes, “have been, a new study finds, far friendlier to business than those of any court since at least World War II. In the eight years since Chief Justice Roberts joined the court, it has allowed corporations to spend freely in elections in the Citizens United case, has shielded them from class actions and human rights suits, and has made arbitration the favored way to resolve many disputes.”

    The latest report, published in April in The Minnesota Law Review, looks far beyond cursory glances and anecdotal examples, studying 2,000 court decisions over a 65-year-period ending in 2011. “The study ranked the 36 justices who served on the court over those 65 years by the proportion of their pro-business votes; all five of the current court’s more conservative members were in the top 10,” Liptak notes. “But the study’s most striking finding was that the two justices most likely to vote in favor of business interests since 1946 are the most recent conservative additions to the court, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., both appointed by President George W. Bush.”

    Before right-wing skeptics criticize the latest report as biased propaganda, we should note that the authors who prepared the report – Lee Epstein, a USC professor of law and political science; William M. Landes, an economist at the University of Chicago; and Judge Richard A. Posner, of the federal appeals court in Chicago, who teaches law at the University of Chicago – are no one’s idea of a leftist cabal.

    This study, meanwhile, comes on the heels of a new report by the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) that found that the Supreme Court continues to hear more cases involving business interests and “that the Chamber [of Commerce] continues to win the vast majority of its cases pending before the Roberts Court.” ACS’s own Jeremy Leaming took a look at this report and the broader issue just four days ago in a post for ACSblog. 

  • May 3, 2013

    by E. Sebastian Arduengo

    Last month, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D–Vt.) reintroduced the Gideon’s Promise Act of 2013 to address the problems plaguing the indigent defense system which have left the promise of Gideon v. Wainwright increasingly hollow for the poorest people in our society. The act would require states to use existing federal funds to improve the administration of criminal justice in a comprehensive, strategic way, and to collaborate with the Department of Justice and local authorities to devise a plan for adequately addressing indigent defense needs. If states refuse to comply then the Department of Jusice would have the power to take them to court to make sure that they are meeting their constitutional obligations.

    But Leahy’s bill doesn’t go nearly far enough to address budget-related failings in our criminal justice system. With sequestration at the federal level, and years of budget cutbacks at the state level, we’re now to the point where years of political indifference to funding the judicial branch has affected the basic operation of the courts and the services that we expect them to provide.

    This is a crisis that’s reached such endemic proportions that Chief Justice John Roberts made it a focus of last year’s state of the judiciary report, where he made the case that the federal courts were already being as cost-effective as they could possibly be, and warned that “significant and prolonged shortfall[s] in judicial funding would inevitably result in the delay or denial of justice for the people the courts serve.”

    That scenario is already playing out in state and local courts across the country.

    The effect of over a billion dollars of cuts in the last four years has been nothing short of devastating to the Los Angeles Superior Court system. Court officials plan to shutter a dozen courthouses and make an indeterminate number of staff layoffs. The only thing these courthouses will be used for now is for collecting traffic fines and administrative functions. The actual business of dispensing justice will be triaged at the remaining courthouses in the county, “where certain types of cases are heard at each remaining courthouse.”

  • May 2, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has fared increasingly well before the nation’s top court, a trend that does not appear to be dissipating. In fall 2010, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) reported that as the Supreme Court became more conservative, the nation’s lobby for corporate interests began to win more and more of its cases.

    In a new report, CAC reveals the Supreme Court continues to hear more cases involving business interests and “that the Chamber continues to win the vast majority of its cases pending before the Roberts Court. Although many of the Chamber’s cases this Term are still pending, it’s already off to a strong start, wining six cases so far and losing only one – a record that’s consistent with (and somewhat stronger than) the Chamber’s overall tally before the Roberts Court to date. Indeed, since John Roberts took over as Chief Justice and Justice Samuel Alito succeeded Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Chamber has prevailed in 69 percent of its cases overall (66 of 95 cases from 2006 – 2013).” [Footnote 2 of the report provides more information about the cases already decided this Term].

    As its initial report showed the Chamber has found more success protecting its interests as the high court has drifted rightward. The business lobby’s win-rate improved during the Rehnquist Court and has climbed since.

    CAC’s report notes the business cases before the high court have been overshadowed by high-profile cases involving equality and voting rights. But as Zachary Roth reports for MSNBC, CAC’s work reveals that an aggressive strategy launched by the Chamber in the ‘70s is paying handsomely.

    Roth notes the Powell memo – written by Lewis Powell Jr. before he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon. Powell wrote to the head of the Chamber and warned that an “assault on the enterprise system is broadly based on and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.” His memo went on to blast leftists, students on college campuses and Ralph Nader for advancing the alleged attack on free enterprise and softly chastised business leaders for not responding. Powell then encouraged the Chamber to help organize business interests to fight back.

    CAC highlights this term’s Comcast Corp. v. Behrend opinion, in which the high court’s right-wing justices claimed the class action suit against Comcast was “improperly certified.”

    It’s not the first time the high court’s right-wing bloc has turned to a technicality to dismiss class actions against larger corporations. The opinions in Wal-Mart v. Dukes and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion were also ones that have helped create a troubling dynamic of a Supreme Court that caters to corporate interests to the great detriment of individuals. Read CAC’s, “Not So Risky Business: The Chamber of Commerce’s Quiet Success Before the Roberts Court – An Early Report for 2012 – 2013.”