dailyloe.com – The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a Louisiana inmate this week. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson publicly dissented from the decision. They argued the Court left a potential injustice in place.
The case involves James Skinner, convicted for a 1998 murder. A co-defendant, Michael Wearry, had his conviction vacated by the Court in 2016. That ruling found prosecutors violated their duty to disclose evidence.
Justice Sotomayor wrote the denial leaves Skinner imprisoned for life. She stated the prosecution failed to disclose the same evidence to Skinner. The Court thus failed to treat similar defendants alike, she argued.
This evidence disclosure duty stems from the 1963 Brady v. Maryland ruling. The landmark case requires prosecutors to share favorable evidence with the defense. Violations of this rule can lead to overturned convictions.
Skinner’s co-defendant, Michael Wearry, was tried for the same crime. Wearry was convicted and sentenced to death in his initial trial. The Supreme Court later vacated his conviction due to the Brady violation.
Skinner’s first trial ended with a hung jury. He was later convicted and sentenced to life in prison. His appeal argued the same undisclosed evidence applied to his case.
State officials opposed the Supreme Court’s review of Skinner’s appeal. They argued Wearry’s case did not help Skinner’s legal position. The Court’s majority sided with this view without comment.
Justice Sotomayor stated the refusal to review enforces a double standard. She wrote Skinner risks life in prison while Wearry walks free. The Court thus refuses to enforce its own precedents, she concluded.
This marks another week where liberal justices publicly dissented from orders. Last week, Sotomayor lamented the rejection of a petition from Rodney Reed. She argued Texas might execute him without full DNA testing.
The recurring dissents highlight ongoing debates over criminal justice procedures. They focus on the application of constitutional protections for defendants. The Supreme Court’s discretionary review power remains a central mechanism.[]
Source: Yahoo
