One of the more egregious examples of judicial silliness by the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been overturned by the Supreme Court in a remarkable stand for common sense.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the federal appeals court in California overstepped its authority when it granted a new trial to a murder defendant whose victimÂ’s relatives sat at the trial, in the view of the jury, wearing buttons with the victimÂ’s picture on them.

The appeals court, in granting a writ of habeas corpus, found that the buttons were inherently prejudicial and deprived the defendant, Mathew Musladin, of the right to a fair trial.

Voting 9 to 0, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas that did not actually decide whether the buttons were prejudicial. That was, and remains, “an open question in our jurisprudence,” Justice Thomas said. And that was precisely where the appeals court had gone wrong, the justices agreed; it had based a grant of habeas corpus on a legal principle that the Supreme Court itself had not adopted.

The short answer is that the justices unanimously decided that there is no basis in law or precedent for holding that the actions of private individuals (wearing buttons showing the victim in a murder case) constitutes state action depriving a defendant of due process.

I do find it of concern, however, that some members of the court seem to leave open the door for the possibility that the buttons do constitute a violation of the defendant's rights.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.