, a case that could mean life or death for Barry Jones, who sits on death row in Arizona for the rape and murder of his girlfriend’s 4-year-old daughter, Rachel.
On Monday morning, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court concurred: Barry Jones’ innocence is not enough to keep him off of death row. The state of Arizona can still kill Jones, even if there exists a preponderance of evidence that he committed no crime. At the time of his trial, Jones was appointed a lawyer by the state—a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed to all criminal defendants under the Sixth Amendment. If a defendant argues, after conviction, that they failed to receive adequate counsel they are appointed new legal representation. If the new lawyer also provides ineffective counsel, a federal habeas appeal allows them to argue that their post-conviction lawyer was ineffective.
Thomas justifies the court’s decision by arguing that a federal review imposes “significant costs” on state criminal justice systems that includes potentially overriding “the State’s sovereign power to enforce ‘societal norms through criminal law.’” What societal objective is furthered by such an outcome? Why would any prosecutor risk killing an innocent man? How does that benefit the cause of justice?As Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, said to me, part of the problem is that “the court’s conservative majority does not fully accept the idea that there is a right to effective assistance of counsel.”
Time for a change
The republican politicians on the Supreme Court..are about to tell us that states rights inexplicably should carry more weight ..which is only going to exacerbate divisions. We need to give Biden a senate that will prevent the GOP from continuing its divide and conquer scheme
SCOTUSStench
Do you believe this? We are lost.