Kansas v. Ventris was argued this morning. (Pictured above from l-r: Matt Edge, counsel of record who argued the case, Randall Hodgkinson, who co-authored the merits brief and was at counsel table; and Carl Folsom, who lost his ID while going through security, but still talked his way into the section of the courtroom for admitted attorneys).
The Court was somewhat cold, and it was hard to judge how the Court is leaning (I don't think Souter or Kennedy asked a question). The transcript is available by now, but my quick thought is that the important point is whether the Sixth Amendment violation occurs during the illegal interrogation (by the snitch) or if the violation is when the evidence is admitted at trial for impeachment. Scalia seemed hesitant to encourage a constitutional violation (admitting the evidence at trial) just to prevent possible perjury. Alito specifically asked when the violation occured, as did another Justice.
The Court was somewhat cold, and it was hard to judge how the Court is leaning (I don't think Souter or Kennedy asked a question). The transcript is available by now, but my quick thought is that the important point is whether the Sixth Amendment violation occurs during the illegal interrogation (by the snitch) or if the violation is when the evidence is admitted at trial for impeachment. Scalia seemed hesitant to encourage a constitutional violation (admitting the evidence at trial) just to prevent possible perjury. Alito specifically asked when the violation occured, as did another Justice.
[Update: on April 29, 2009, the SCOTUS reversed the KSC 7-2 and remanded for futher proceedings].
[Further update: here is some commentary by Professor Michael Mannheimer on the SCOTUS decision].
[Further update: here is more commentary by Professor Sherry Colb on the SCOUTS decision].
1 comment:
Hey, you guys clean up nice!
Post a Comment