SCOTUS Declines To Hear Post-Conviction Relief Dispute In Missouri Capital Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a case involving post-conviction relief for a Missouri death row inmate, maintaining the federal legal standard that requires prisoners to demonstrate that "reasonable judges could disagree" or that their case warrants further consideration before appealing a trial decision in federal courts.
According to SCOTUS Blog, the Court decided Monday not to weigh in on whether prisoners may proceed with an appeal as long as at least one judge in the appeals court votes in their favor.
The case concerns Lance Shockley, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2005 killing of a Missouri highway patrol officer investigating a fatal car crash that involved Shockley. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the decision to deny review, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her six-page dissent.
The rejection was issued in a brief, unsigned order among several matters from the justices' private meeting on Friday, March 28.
Shockley asserted that his trial counsel failed to provide effective legal representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. His attorneys were unaware during the trial that the jury foreman had self-published a "fictionalized autobiography," in which the main character seeks "vengeance" after losing his wife to a drunk driver who received only a probationary sentence. By the time Shockley's lawyers discovered the book—after his conviction—they did not follow the judge’s advice to gather evidence supporting a motion for a new trial. For instance, they could have questioned the jury foreman about whether he had discussed his book with other jurors, which he had.
After failing to obtain relief through state courts, Shockley sought intervention in federal court, but the district court denied both his appeal and his request for post-conviction relief.
He then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which ruled against his request for an appeal by a 2-1 vote. A second judge joined the dissenter in supporting a rehearing, but the full appellate court declined to reconsider the matter.
In November, Shockley petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that the division among the judges demonstrated that "reasonable judges could disagree" over the handling of his claim, which federal law requires for an appeal to move forward. He further contended that at least four other appellate courts would have allowed his request under similar circumstances.
The state of Missouri urged the justices not to intervene, asserting that Congress and the Supreme Court had left it to the circuit courts to determine their own processes for "applications for certificates of appealability." The state argued that any differences in how appellate courts handle such applications are "merely differences of administration on a procedural matter" and do not warrant the Court’s involvement.
After deliberating across five conferences, the justices ultimately rejected Shockley’s appeal.
In her dissent, Sotomayor contended that the appeal should have been granted. She argued that "Congress conditioned the right to an appeal on a single judge’s vote" and pointed to federal law, which specifies that most cases "must be resolved by the appropriate 'court of appeals,' or by 'a majority of the number of judges authorized to constitute a court or panel thereof.'" She further noted that "a circuit justice or judge can grant permission to appeal" and suggested Congress could have extended this provision to post-conviction cases.
Sotomayor also maintained that permitting an appeal when at least one judge supports it "promotes efficiency." She asserted that granting an appeal "should not be a contentious one" since cases should advance when they present "a debatable issue."
Regarding Shockley’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Sotomayor remarked that it "is difficult to see how an attorney’s decision not to call witnesses in support of a credible mistrial motion, when invited to do so by the presiding judge in a capital murder trial, could fail to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel." She further criticized the appellate court’s determination that the district court’s contrary ruling was "not even debatable," calling it "plainly" incorrect.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has yet to issue decisions on several high-profile petitions that have been pending for weeks. Among them are challenges to Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles, Rhode Island’s prohibition on large-capacity magazines, and the transfer of federal land in Arizona to a mining company—land that the San Carlos Apache Tribe considers sacred.
The justices are scheduled to hold another private conference on Friday, April 4. Orders from that meeting are expected to be announced on Monday, April 7, at 9:30 a.m.