People v. State

fairly undermining public confidence in the administration of justice
Subscribe

“I would not ignore Smith’s plight and choose her case as a fit opportunity to teach the Ninth Circuit a lesson.” (Updated)

October 31, 2011 By: John Kindley Category: Judges, Presumption of Innocence, Rule of Lenity

Thus writes Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Breyer, in their dissenting opinion in Cavazos v. Smith, in which the majority summarily reversed a Ninth Circuit decision holding that no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of shaking her grandchild and causing his death in 1996. As a result of the majority’s decision, the grandmother, who has been free for the last five years, will now have to return to prison.

The very fact that the presumably-rational Ninth Circuit judges found that no rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt should itself demonstrate to a rational mind that no rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the majority on the SCOTUS admitted that “Doubts about whether Smith is in fact guilty are understandable.” If those doubts are understandable, they’re reasonable.

A legal system worthy of respect would not limit the presumption of innocence to something we tell jurors they should think about, but would apply it across the board, in legislation, and in judicial opinions.

The dissenters essentially accuse the majority of Gratuitous Violence.

The “law” is exposed again as a cruel and ugly monster.

UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times reports:

Smith, contacted in Illinois where she has been living since she was allowed to leave her parole hold in California last year, broke down in tears at the news that she may have to return to prison.

“I did not kill my grandson. I won’t go back to prison. I can’t do that,” said Smith, who said she had not been told of the high-court ruling by her attorney or court officials.

According to a Los Angeles Times story from last year:

Citing her faith and her confidence that “there are people with consciences on the Supreme Court,” Smith says she firmly believes her ordeal is nearing an end and the high court won’t step in again to question the 9th Circuit judgment.

On other days, she is haunted by the darker scenario.

“I won’t go back to prison,” she vows, shaking her head with conviction. “I’ll take my own life first, but I won’t go back there.”

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Honor Where Honor Is Due | People v. State 05 11 11

Leave a Reply

*

  • "[T]here is just nothing wrong with telling the American people the truth." - Allen v. United States

  • Lysander Spooner

    Henry George

    Harriet Tubman

    Sitting Bull

    Angelus Silesius

    Smedley Butler

    Rose Wilder Lane

    Albert Jay Nock

    Dora Marsden

    Leo Tolstoy

    Henry David Thoreau

    John Brown

    Karl Hess

    Levi Coffin

    Max Stirner

    Dorothy Day

    Ernst Jünger

    Thomas Paine