An Open and Shut Case

A recent case from Iowa ought to be a good test for the Phantom's unscientific, empirical theory of the Supreme Court.

The case stems from an Iowa murder conviction, and as I understand it, certain "facts" are agreed as matter of stipulation, to wit: A high school senior, a black youth (a promising young man, who was being recruited to play football at Yale,) was arrested and convicted of the murder of a white man on the testimony of another teenager.

The teenager who provided the incriminating testimony got nearly everything wrong when police and prosecutors first interrogated him: the wrong location for the murder he supposedly had witnessed, the wrong weapon (a handgun vs a shotgun) and utimately, even the state of Iowa, or at least the appelate courts agreed the witness was simply not to be believed and there was evidence the prosecutors coached him relentlessly until he had a story which would hold water in court.

The prosecutors, by most if not by all accounts, knew their witness was a phony, but they used his testimony to get a conviction.

Assertions were later made about the reasons the prosecutors were so determined to convict the defendant--the defedant was African American and would be tried by an all white jury; the alternative suspect was well connected in the community. The reasons the prosecutors proceeded with evidence which was clearly a fabrication are not agreed upon, but the falsity of the testimony is not in dispute, nor, as far as I can tell is the awareness on the part of the prosecutors about the falsity.

After 25 years in jail, the defendant managed to get himself exonerated through the appelate process and then sued the prosecutors who knowingly falsely accused him.

The prosecutors have argued not that they were convinced they had the right man but simply that even if they knew the testimony was specious they cannot be held accountable for their actions because as officers of the state, as prosecutors, they are immune from such suits under a law which protects them from personal liability as a result of their work as prosecutors. They argue, and I think I actually have this right, they argue the process of preparing a witness for his false testimony is part of and inseparable from the actual trial and the clear legal precedent is no prosecutor can be sued for what he says during the trial, in court.

So if suborning perjury occurs as part of this process, they are still immune because it was all part and parcel of the trial. That, as far as I can tell, is their actual argument.

They are saying,in effect, it was the jury's duty to determine whether or not to believe the false witness the prosecutors' witness had presented during trial.

You do not need three years in law school to figure out how to rule in this case, you might say.

But, if the Phantom's theory of the Supreme Court is correct, then the four justices who vote for those in power will, in this astonishing case, manage to find a reason to rule in favor of the prosecutors, who, after all, are the guys in power. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts will all somehow find a way to find for the the authority figures, just as they found a way to find in favor of the high school principal who stomped across the street to destroy the "Bong Hits for Jesus" sign displayed off school property at a parade.

That this young man, who had such a promising future was so wronged by the government's men, that his life and prospects were ruined, that the real culprit was allowed to go free because the prosecutors chose to prosecute the wrong man will matter not at all.

All that will matter is the ex convict is suing the government officials, the little guy is trying to bring down the powerful.

If the justices vote as the Phantom predicts, can there be any doubt having a law degree, having been a judge or a lawyer, having been judged "Qualified" by the American Bar Association is all hogwash.

If they find for the prosecutors, there is no law here, only social agenda. And if social agenda is what drives Supreme Court decisions, why do you need a law degree? Why should we not have a few scientists, police, doctors on the Supreme Court, to balance all the "legal" thinkers.

Stay tuned.