The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up two cases from the District of Columbia's local court system (not to be confused with USCA-DC). The cases involve the rule of Brady v. Maryland (1963) that the prosecution must disclose to the defense material exculpatory evidence in its possession. "Material," in this context, means evidence that might have made a difference in the result.
The high court rewrote the question presented as simply, "Whether petitioners' convictions must be set aside under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1983)." This is highly unusual. Application of settled rules of law to particular fact patterns is something the high court generally leaves to lower courts. Characterizing a case as "fact-bound" is what you do when you won in the lower court and don't want SCOTUS to get involved. If you can get the Supreme Court to accept that characterization, it's usually the kiss of death for the other side's request to take the case up.
What is different about this case? Is the court worried that this is a case of actual innocence injustice so compelling that it must break its usual pattern to intervene? The justices usually defer to trial court judge's judgments on such matters, and that is certainly not how the district court judge saw this case.
The high court rewrote the question presented as simply, "Whether petitioners' convictions must be set aside under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1983)." This is highly unusual. Application of settled rules of law to particular fact patterns is something the high court generally leaves to lower courts. Characterizing a case as "fact-bound" is what you do when you won in the lower court and don't want SCOTUS to get involved. If you can get the Supreme Court to accept that characterization, it's usually the kiss of death for the other side's request to take the case up.
What is different about this case? Is the court worried that this is a case of actual innocence injustice so compelling that it must break its usual pattern to intervene? The justices usually defer to trial court judge's judgments on such matters, and that is certainly not how the district court judge saw this case.
Petitioners' claims are based almost entirely on the recantations of Calvin Alston, Harry Bennett, Linda Jacobs, and Melvin Montgomery. For the reasons stated above, not one of those recantations is credible, and the best reading of Montgomery's testimony is that he is not recanting at all. Having heard the "new" evidence, the court is convinced that the totality of evidence pointing to the guilt of these seven petitioners, and others, in the abduction and murder of Catherine Fuller on October 1, 1984, remains - as the Court of Appeals first characterized it - "overwhelming."Curious. When it comes to assessing the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts pritnear never overrule the judge who heard their testimony in person.
The cases are Turner v. United States, No. 15-1503 and Overton v. United States, No. 15-1504.
See House v. Bell.
DJ thought the evidence of innocence was BS. My view is that he was right.