I tried desperately yesterday to find something worth blogging about but my searches were all in vain. Today, however, the Court’s ruling in three death penalty cases is just asking to be blogged about.

In Smith v. Texas, the Court, in an opinion written by the ever-swinging Justice Kennedy, held that Texas’s Court of Criminal Appeals had misapplied the ‘harmless error standard’ to Smith’s case on remand from the federal courts years earlier. The jury in Smith’s trial was could have reasonably “believed it was not permitted to consider Smith’s relevant mitigating evidence … it appears Smith is entitled to relief under the state harmless-error framework.”

Justice Souter penned a brief concurring opinion that is reprinted in its entirety:

I join the Court’s opinion. In some later case, we may be required to consider whether harmless error review is ever appropriate in a case with error as described in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989). We do not and need not address that question here.

Justice Souter’s opinion highlights the courts willingness to give less narrow review of the harmless error standard at a later date. The Court may have been unable to give that broad review at this time because of the weak majority that they were able to maintain. The four liberal justices (countering the four horsemen perhaps?) were probably forced to give an incredibly narrow ruling in order to swing Justice Kennedy over to their side.

Justice Kennedy was once again given the opportunity to pen the majority opinion in a tight 5-4 split on the Court. As the most senior Associate Justice, Justice Stevens surely granted Justice Kennedy this responsibility in order to get him in his good graces.

More on this case and the other two later today.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • More Sophisticated Reconferencing Statistics: A commentator on my last conferencing post picked up on an important part of the distribution question that I had intentionally omitted....
  • Advocates Arguing from Private Practice (OT 2000-2011): In my last post, I provided a list of the top Supreme Court advocates of the twenty-first century who had never worked in the Office of the ...
  • Traitors to the Cause: 6-3 decisions are, statistically speaking, the least common vote split. Frequently, those cases split along the ideological lines that are s...
  • PDF Packs for the Past Decade: I've been pillaging the Supreme Court's website in search of PDFs that I can archive for future reference. Using the Court's website and the...
  • Profile: H. Bartow Farr, III: In the past, we've profiled notable advocates and judges that were in the news. This is the first in a series of posts about the advocates w...