Rory Little has this post at SCOTUSblog on yesterday's argument in City of Hays v. Vogt. The case involves the use at a preliminary proceeding, not a trial, of a statement a former police officer was required to make. Is that a Fifth Amendment violation for which he can sue the city?
But there are complications that make the case a problematic "vehicle" to address that question. One thing just coming out now is that Vogt may not have made any objection to the introduction of the evidence. That is important. Generally, any objection to evidence not made at the time of introduction is forfeited.
But there are complications that make the case a problematic "vehicle" to address that question. One thing just coming out now is that Vogt may not have made any objection to the introduction of the evidence. That is important. Generally, any objection to evidence not made at the time of introduction is forfeited.
Prof. Little concludes:
Thus the justices appear divided on the merits, and the doctrinal consequences of a ruling in any direction seemed unsettled at best during the argument. Factual wrinkles, the interlocutory posture and non-record inferences further complicate the case. Particularly this late in a Supreme Court term that is packed with difficult cases -- and with Gorsuch's recusal making an unsatisfying 4-4 tie at least possible -- the justices may not feel that the case is worth more effort. It is true that the justices, and Roberts in particular, do not like to dismiss cases once granted, especially with the small number of cases that the court now takes each year. Perhaps Kagan can steer the court to a narrow ruling for Vogt, limited just to preliminary hearings, as she suggested more than once. But a DIG [dismiss as improvidently granted] here also now seems like a genuine possibility.CJLF filed a "reach for the brass ring" brief asking the Court to reconsider its "derivative use" line of cases. This probably wasn't the best case to file that kind of brief, it now appears.
Leave a comment