Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Arizona asks court to approve "Kafkaesque" treatment of due-process claim from man on death row
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/arizona-asks-court-to-approve-kafkaesque-treatment-of-due-process-claim-from-man-on-death-row/ARGUMENT ANALYSIS
Arizona asks court to approve Kafkaesque treatment of due-process claim from man on death row
By Alexis Hoag-Fordjour
on Nov 2, 2022 at 6:42 pm
During Tuesdays oral argument in Cruz v. Arizona, the justices considered whether a state procedural rule prevents John Cruz, who was sentenced to death, from obtaining relief on his federal due-process claim in state post-conviction. To answer this question, the court must determine if Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g) provides an adequate and independent state-law ground for refusing to recognize Cruzs federal right. Rule 32.1(g) is a procedural mechanism that allows Arizona petitioners to challenge their conviction or sentence when there is a significant change in the law that would impact their case. The justices questions explored two main areas: state authority to limit post-conviction review; and Arizonas determination of a significant change in the law for 32.1(g) purposes.
As background, a Pima County jury convicted Cruz of capital murder in 2005. During his sentencing hearing, Cruz requested to inform the jury that if they spared him the death penalty, he would be ineligible for parole. In doing so, he referenced a 1994 Supreme Court case, Simmons v. South Carolina, which held that jurors must receive such information to rebut an inference that the defendant posed a danger in the future. The court held that such information was part of the defendants constitutional right to due process. However, in line with Arizonas view of Simmons, Cruzs trial judge refused his request. The jury returned a death sentence. Cruz unsuccessfully appealed his Simmons claim in state post-conviction proceedings. Then, in 2016, when the Supreme Court decided Lynch v. Arizona, instructing Arizona courts to apply Simmons, Cruz renewed his appeal. This time, he pointed to Rule 32.1(g), explaining that Lynch constituted a significant change in the law.
Justice Clarence Thomas posed the first question, asking Cruzs lawyer, Neal Katyal, whether there was even a federal issue for the court to decide given that Arizona was simply applying state procedural law. Although Katyal quickly addressed the issue, the question signaled Thomass inclination to rule against the petitioner. In a somewhat similar vein, Chief Justice John Roberts denied that Arizona was acting with any hostility in applying its procedural rule, and mused that Arizona was simply limiting post-conviction review, which was perfectly within the states purview. Justice Samuel Alito then interrupted Katyals response to the chief justice with a hypothetical. When Katyal pointed to a deficiency in Alitos speculative scenario, the justice interjected: I meant to make that part of my hypothetical too. Rather than clarify the issue before the court, the opening questions, including inquiries from Justice Neil Gorsuch, communicated the justices unwillingness to engage with the relatively straightforward facts of the case: the appropriateness of Arizona relying on a state law to prevent Cruz from seeking reversal of a death sentence that violates federal law.
[...]
Comments from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seemed to indicate that they too may be receptive to Cruzs arguments. Barrett described Kanefields efforts to downplay the significance of the change in the law as kind of artificial and hair splitting. Toward the end of argument, Kavanaugh noted that other states had declined to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Arizonas position.
[...]
Arizona asks court to approve Kafkaesque treatment of due-process claim from man on death row
By Alexis Hoag-Fordjour
on Nov 2, 2022 at 6:42 pm
During Tuesdays oral argument in Cruz v. Arizona, the justices considered whether a state procedural rule prevents John Cruz, who was sentenced to death, from obtaining relief on his federal due-process claim in state post-conviction. To answer this question, the court must determine if Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g) provides an adequate and independent state-law ground for refusing to recognize Cruzs federal right. Rule 32.1(g) is a procedural mechanism that allows Arizona petitioners to challenge their conviction or sentence when there is a significant change in the law that would impact their case. The justices questions explored two main areas: state authority to limit post-conviction review; and Arizonas determination of a significant change in the law for 32.1(g) purposes.
As background, a Pima County jury convicted Cruz of capital murder in 2005. During his sentencing hearing, Cruz requested to inform the jury that if they spared him the death penalty, he would be ineligible for parole. In doing so, he referenced a 1994 Supreme Court case, Simmons v. South Carolina, which held that jurors must receive such information to rebut an inference that the defendant posed a danger in the future. The court held that such information was part of the defendants constitutional right to due process. However, in line with Arizonas view of Simmons, Cruzs trial judge refused his request. The jury returned a death sentence. Cruz unsuccessfully appealed his Simmons claim in state post-conviction proceedings. Then, in 2016, when the Supreme Court decided Lynch v. Arizona, instructing Arizona courts to apply Simmons, Cruz renewed his appeal. This time, he pointed to Rule 32.1(g), explaining that Lynch constituted a significant change in the law.
Justice Clarence Thomas posed the first question, asking Cruzs lawyer, Neal Katyal, whether there was even a federal issue for the court to decide given that Arizona was simply applying state procedural law. Although Katyal quickly addressed the issue, the question signaled Thomass inclination to rule against the petitioner. In a somewhat similar vein, Chief Justice John Roberts denied that Arizona was acting with any hostility in applying its procedural rule, and mused that Arizona was simply limiting post-conviction review, which was perfectly within the states purview. Justice Samuel Alito then interrupted Katyals response to the chief justice with a hypothetical. When Katyal pointed to a deficiency in Alitos speculative scenario, the justice interjected: I meant to make that part of my hypothetical too. Rather than clarify the issue before the court, the opening questions, including inquiries from Justice Neil Gorsuch, communicated the justices unwillingness to engage with the relatively straightforward facts of the case: the appropriateness of Arizona relying on a state law to prevent Cruz from seeking reversal of a death sentence that violates federal law.
[...]
Comments from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seemed to indicate that they too may be receptive to Cruzs arguments. Barrett described Kanefields efforts to downplay the significance of the change in the law as kind of artificial and hair splitting. Toward the end of argument, Kavanaugh noted that other states had declined to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Arizonas position.
[...]
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 1195 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Arizona asks court to approve "Kafkaesque" treatment of due-process claim from man on death row (Original Post)
sl8
Nov 2022
OP
"Comments from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seemed to indicate that they too ..."
mahatmakanejeeves
Nov 2022
#1
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,488 posts)1. "Comments from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seemed to indicate that they too ..."
Comments from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seemed to indicate that they too may be receptive to Cruzs arguments. Barrett described Kanefields efforts to downplay the significance of the change in the law as kind of artificial and hair splitting. Toward the end of argument, Kavanaugh noted that other states had declined to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Arizonas position.
"Kanefield" is Joseph Kanefield, the attorney arguing the case for Arizona.
Well, well. I await DU's usual suspects to weigh in with their commentary.
Thanks for the thread.