Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Thin.

That was Judge Rosenbaum in this concurrence yesterday.  Here's the whole intro:
Johnny Marshall has already spent seventeen years in jail for a $261 robbery that he very well may not have committed. And after our decision today, he may spend the rest of his life there. But Marshall’s attorney almost certainly could have prevented Marshall’s conviction, had he done what any other competent attorney would have on this record: pursued a motion to suppress the illegally obtained sole eye-witness’s identification of Marshall, an identification that the same witness’s earlier description of Marshall squarely contradicted.
I write separately because I believe that Marshall was denied effective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Nevertheless, despite the weak evidence underlying Marshall’s conviction and the substantial error his trial counsel made, I agree with the Majority’s ultimate conclusion that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 offers Marshall no relief. Whether because of § 2254’s strict statutory exhaustion requirements or its highly deferential standard of review of state-court decisions, we have no choice but to deny Marshall’s claim. At this point, any potential relief Marshall might obtain must come from the state, such as an act of clemency by the state’s executive branch.
I.
Thin. That’s a generous way to describe the evidence against Marshall. The only evidence tying Marshall to the robbery consists of Geraldine Jenkins’s identification of him. But Jenkins—the Pizza Hut employee who was present during the robbery—identified Marshall within about an hour of providing a description of the robber that bore about as much resemblance to Marshall’s actual appearance as broccoli does to carrots. Both are in the same general category—men and vegetables, respectively—but that’s where the similarities end.

8 comments:

Rumpole said...

what kind of legal system does this to it's innocent citizens wrongfully incarcerated?

Anonymous said...

Ah, woe, what times are these where a federal court can see a clear injustice that can require an innocent man to spend his entire life in prison but is left to shrug its shoulders as a powerless bystander. So much for the Great Writ.

Anonymous said...

don't know if truly innocent or not; but underscores the problem of reliance on eyewitness testimony. likely no strong expert evidence was introduced to undermine it. that needs to be fixed (not the habeas statute)

Anonymous said...

Wow. After reading the concurrence, this is pretty shameful. This guy is guilty of being black and near the scene of a crime in the south. That's it.

Anonymous said...

I thought it was "eyewitness" and not "eye-witness." l

Anonymous said...

11:02 That was the point of the case, the lawyer failed to do what any competent lawyer would have done. The lawyer fell below the 6th Amendment standard of assistance of counsel. BUT because the state courts failed to acknowledge that glaringly deficient performance, the Federal Courts have their hands tied and can do nothing except note what an injustice it is. That IS the problem with the AEDPA (well one of them anyway).

Anonymous said...

The questions is: what kind of legislature does this to it's innocent citizens wrongfully incarcerated?

Anonymous said...

I'm never gonna believe its justice for a court to affirm a case under the reasoning of the concurrence. That was just wrong and if the federal court won't stop it, well, #blacklivesmatter. Maybe not.