Thomas Criticizes Supreme Court for Allowing Retrial in Hammer Attack Case
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas issued sharp criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday after it refused to review a lower court’s decision to overturn the conviction of David M. Smith, an Ohio man sentenced to 22 years for a brutal hammer assault.
The Supreme Court’s decision allows Smith to face a retrial after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled last year that the process used to identify him violated his due process rights. In a dissenting opinion, Thomas strongly opposed the 6th Circuit’s decision to grant Smith’s habeas corpus petition and order a retrial. Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas in dissent.
Thomas argued that the lower court’s ruling disregarded the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which limits federal courts from overturning state court convictions, according to the Washington Examiner.
“The Sixth Circuit’s decision is the latest in a long line of blatant AEDPA abuses,” Thomas wrote, cautioning that the ruling undermines the authority of state courts and poses challenges for law enforcement and victims.
“Retrials inflict substantial pain on crime victims” and risk allowing “perpetrators of violent crimes to go free,” he added.
Smith was convicted of attempting to murder Quortney Tolliver in 2015 after she suffered severe skull and facial injuries from hammer blows during an attack at her home. Weeks later, Tolliver identified Smith as her attacker. However, the appeals court ruled that the identification process was “unduly suggestive” and unreliable.
Ohio Attorney General David Yost (R) defended the original conviction, pointing to Smith’s DNA and phone records as evidence linking him to the crime. Yost argued that the appellate court had overstepped its bounds in ordering a retrial.
“The Sixth Circuit not only mishandled the law of eyewitness testimony, it fumbled the law that sets the rule of decision for federal habeas courts,” Yost stated in a brief to the Supreme Court last October.
This marks the second time the Supreme Court has declined to review the 6th Circuit’s decision. The first refusal came in November when the justices rejected an earlier petition.
Thomas warned that retrying the case nearly a decade later would strain resources, risk losing evidence, and prolong the victim’s suffering.
“Retrial diverts significant time and resources away from other law enforcement activities, and it is often ‘more difficult’ because of the ‘erosion of memory’ and ‘dispersion of witnesses’ that accompany the passage of time,” Thomas wrote.
Despite Thomas’s concerns, the Supreme Court’s decision leaves prosecutors free to pursue a retrial under the guidelines set by the 6th Circuit.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court recently rejected efforts by Montana Republicans to invoke a version of the “independent state legislature” theory to challenge two state election laws.
The court’s 2023 rejection of the maximalist version of this theory affirmed that state legislatures do not have unchecked power over election rules, and state courts retain the authority to conduct judicial reviews. However, the majority opinion clarified that state courts do not have “free rein” in such matters.
The court’s ruling did not define a specific standard for determining when the Elections Clause of the Constitution limits state court interventions in federal election laws.
Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) had asked the Supreme Court to review the case to restore two laws banning same-day voter registration and paid ballot collection on election day. These laws had been struck down by the Montana Supreme Court in a 5-2 ruling, citing the state constitution.
In her appeal, Jacobsen, represented by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R), argued that the Montana Supreme Court had overstepped its role, becoming “the final and exclusive arbiter of all federal election legislation in Montana.”
The National Republican Senatorial Committee, 15 Republican state attorneys general, and the America First Legal Foundation supported Montana’s petition. Conversely, Montana Democrats urged the Supreme Court to let the lower court’s ruling stand, emphasizing that it was rooted in the trial’s comprehensive record and existing state law.
“The court’s analysis was based on the ample trial record in this case and firmly grounded in existing Montana law. There was nothing extraordinary or inappropriate about it,” Democrats wrote in their filings, according to The Hill.