The U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion today in Carey v. Musladin. The Court vacated a grant of habeas corpus, finding that the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that buttons displaying the victim's image worn by the family during the defendant's trial denied defendant the right to a fair trial. There were no dissents and several concurring opinions. The link is Carey v. Musladin

Janette Ansolabehere

Now, we shouldn't take this case as a green light for victims' families to wear buttons in court. The USSC simply said that the state court did not act unreasonably by denying the defendant's postconviction writ claim. That is not the same as endorsing the use of buttons.

The opinion does revive, once again, the notion that federal courts -- even those in the 9th circuit -- must show respect for the decisions of state courts.

The NYT sheds a tear for the poor downtrodden killer who lost his appeal, and it remains "unconvinced" (see below) by the Court's unanimous opinion ...

Thank God for the media elitists! It's a miracle we can function without their constant care and support ....



December 13, 2006
Editorial

Lobbying the Jury

We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a defendant's conviction even though spectators at his trial put prejudicial material in sight of the jury. Fortunately, the court made clear that its ruling this week was based only on the unusual way the issue was raised, and that it was not deciding when this kind of politicking from the audience violated the Constitution. The decision should prompt courts to think about how to ensure that courtroom atmosphere does not deprive defendants of a fair trial.

At Mathew Musladin's murder trial in California, the dead man's family sat in the front of the spectators' gallery wearing buttons with their relative's picture. The key issue at trial was which of the two men was the aggressor in a fight, and the photographs were essentially an argument that the deceased was the innocent victim.

Mr. Musladin was convicted in state court, but a federal appeals court overturned his conviction. A federal court can do this only if it finds that a state court violated "clearly established federal law." In this case, the appeals court decided the state court had, since the Supreme Court had ruled in an analogous case that forcing a defendant to stand trial in prison garb sent a message of guilt to the jury and thus violated his right to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court upheld Mr. Musladin's conviction, reversing the appeals court. It ruled that the court was wrong about there being "clearly established federal law" in this area. It decided, not all that convincingly, that the prison garb case was different from Mr. Musladin's case because the government, not private citizens, was sending the prejudicial message.

The Supreme Court emphasized that it was not deciding whether photographs of the kind worn at Mr. Musladin's trial violated the Constitution; that remains an open question. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, advised courts to consider when spectators infringe on a defendant's fair-trial rights.

Justice Kennedy is right. A victim's family has every right to attend a trial. But judges must ensure that criminal defendants are judged on the evidence, and nothing more. If Mr. Musladin's case is at all typical, it suggests that many courts do not have clear, uniform rules about what sort of spectator actions are impermissible. Court systems around the country should take Justice Kennedy's advice and set appropriate standards that preserve defendants' right to a fair trial.

I know all the west coast/9th circuit prosecutor friends I made in the Trial Advocacy III and Advanced Appellate courses I attended in 1998 and 1999 in Columbia SC at the NAC must be happy to see some SCOTUS action on the 9th. West Coast prosecutors envy us Texas prosecutors, here in the Fifth Circuit.

Regardless of how far reaching this opinion is in terms of victim expressions of grief, it is good to see some recognition of reality as far as what can affect a fair trial and messing with state courts.

And yet the Supreme Court still has three dissenters! Amazing.

Sure, dissenters, why let settled case law and common sense speak for themselves? Apparently the better practice would be to scrutinize every jury verdict and allow our feelings and sympathies to guide us. The dissent reads as though defense witness testimony can just be accepted as fact - as though the written record can somehow be a substitute for the factfinders' role in the courtroom in determining witness credibility.

As sad as it is that the Ninth Circuit made its error in the first place, it's just plain scary that three Supreme Court justices would follow the same rationale.