Next opinion is in capital case McCoy v. LA, by Ginsburg. It is 6-3 in favor of the inmate.
This was the case of the inmate who objected to his attorney's strategy of conceding his guilt in the hope of saving his life.
Court holds that a defendant has a right to insist that counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel's experience-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty.
"Guaranteeing a defendant the right 'to have the ASSISTANCE of Counsel for HIS defence,' the Sixth Amendment so demands. With individual liberty--and, in capital cases, life-- at stake, it is the defendant's prerogative, not counsel's, to decide on the objective of his defense: to admit guilt in the hope of gaining mercy at the sentencing stage, or to maintain his innocence, leaving it to the State to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.
Assuming normal reverse-seniority rules apply to announce remaining opinion(s), we could hear from Thomas, Kennedy, or the Chief still today. Or Ginsburg again.
Next decision is Byrd v. US, by Kennedy.
Decision is unanimous. Court holds that the fact that a driver in control or possession of a car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy.
This was a case in which a New Jersey man was driving the car that his girlfriend/fiancee had rented and had not listed him on the rental agreement. He was pulled over and police found body armor and 49 bricks of heroin in their search. The government had argued that he had no expectation of privacy because he was not on the rental agreement.
We apparently won't hear from Thomas, so we could still get an opinion from Kennedy again or Roberts. But there is at least one mroe to come.
Last decision is US v. Sanchez-Gomez by Roberts. The court decides unanimously that it is moot.
This was a case in which 4 criminal defendants objected to being bound by full restraints during pretrial proceedings, but the district court denied relief. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the use of restraints was unconstitutional, even though each of the cases had ended before it ruled. The question was whether the appeals were moot, either because the defendants sought "class-like" relief or because the scenario could repeat itself.
Court concludes: "None of this is to say that those who wish to challenge the use of full physical restraints in the Southern District lack any avenue for relief. In the course of this litigation the parties have touched upon several options. Because we hold this case moot, we take no position on the question."
And that is all for today. I am going to get to work on my four posts for today, but hopefully some of the others will stick around. I would expect to be back here next Monday for more opinions, although we don't know yet for sure. Thanks for joining, and have a great day!
Thanks to everyone for joining us. We'll have analyses on today's five opinions, as well as a report of this morning's orders.
Thanks for all the great questions today. I'm outta here. See y'all soon.
Possibly more opinions coming next Monday. If so we'll be live-blogging. Happy start to the week!
Submit Event
