The case of Clarence Thomas v. America is perhaps THE case that all Americans should focus on above all others. The warped logic of Clarence Thomas' jurisprudence has been discussed previously here at
https://watchingtheherd.blogspot.com/2019/12/book-review-enigma-of-clarence-thomas.html
in book review form. However, it takes some doing to keep up with the damage Thomas seems hellbent on inflicting across every segment of American society.
The US Supreme Court issued a ruling on May 23, 2022 regarding rights of criminal defendants in post-conviction phases of proceedings. The case involved an Arizona man convicted of murdering his girlfriend's four year old daughter who was subsequently sentenced to death. In the sentencing phase, new counsel argued that the public defender appointed by the State of Arizona failed to introduce exculpatory evidence in the case and argued to throw out the conviction, a federal appeals court did so, then the State of Arizona appealed the overturned conviction to the Supreme Court.
Enter Clarence Thomas.
The State of Arizona argued before the Supreme Court that "innocence isn't enough" to justify overturning a conviction for someone sentenced to death. The Supreme Court just issued a 6-3 opinion concurring with the State of Arizona, allowing the state to reinstate the conviction and presumably proceed with executing the defendant. Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion available in full here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf
You only have to read the summary of the case and the single Held introduction of the Supreme Court's final ruling.
Respondents David Martinez Ramirez and Barry Lee Jones were each convicted of capital crimes in Arizona state court and sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed each case on direct review, and each prisoner was denied state postconviction relief. Each also filed for federal habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. §2254, arguing that trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to conduct adequate investigations. The Federal District Court held in each case that the prisoner’s ineffective-assistance claim was procedurally defaulted because it was not properly presented in state court. To overcome procedural default in such cases, a prisoner must demonstrate “cause” to excuse the procedural defect and “actual prejudice.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 750. To demonstrate cause, Ramirez and Jones relied on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U. S. 1, which held that ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel may be cited as cause for the procedural default of an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim. In Ramirez’s case, the District Court permitted him to supplement the record with evidence not presented in state court to support his case to excuse the procedural default. Assessing the new evidence, the court excused the procedural default but rejected Ramirez’s ineffective-assistance claim on the merits. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for more evidentiary development to litigate the merits of Ramirez’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim. In Jones’ case, the District Court held a lengthy evidentiary hearing on “cause” and “prejudice,” forgave his procedural default, and held that his state trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance. The State of Arizona petitioned this Court in both cases, arguing that §2254(e)(2) does not permit a federal court to order evidentiary development simply because postconviction counsel is alleged to have negligently failed to develop the state-court record.
Held: Under §2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.
Read that excerpt carefully. The summary explicitly recognizes:
- the purpose of the original appeal was to correct for grossly ineffective counsel
- that ineffective counsel failed to introduce evidence supporting the defendant's case
- after the conviction was overturned at the Federal level, the state court in fact concluded the defendant had ineffective counsel and had procedurally defaulted his case (violating his right to a fair trial)
- yet the State of Arizona appealed that outcome claiming a state cannot be forced by a federal court to introduce new evidence into proceedings simply because of incompetent counsel for a defendant (even though the STATE appointed that counsel)
Not really covered in that summary is the nature of some of the evidence involved in this case. The two defendants in the original case were accused of raping and murdering the four year old girl. The evidence in the case actually showed no sign of rape and the actual cause of death was an internal intestinal issue which medical examiners had reviewed and found was a longer standing condition and could not have resulted from abuse or trauma inflicted in the days prior to her death when she was in the presence of the defendants.
Yet none of that matters. The first sentence of the court's decision -- written by Clarence Thomas -- is all that matters. The Court recognizes government appointed lawyers were incompetent, it recognizes that exculpatory evidence exists that likely proves the defendant is INNOCENT, it recognizes this is a death penalty case and the court DOES NOT CARE. A federal court does not have the right to force a state criminal court to accept new evidence into a proceeding even if the evidence lies at the core of a defendant's appeal on grounds of incompetent counsel. Even if that evidence itself proves the innocence of the defendant.
That should send chills down the spine of EVERY citizen of America.
There have been dozens of stories in the news over the last twenty years about incompetent medical examiners and arson investigators found to have issued cookie cutter opinions in murder cases. There have been dozens of stories about District Attorneys and corrupt police departments railroading innocent defendants in custody rather than reviewing all the evidence pointing to other perpetrators. There are teams of lawyers working pro bono to use DNA evidence available to state and federal courts to overturn wrongly convicted parties and prosecute the real perpetrators. Yet the US Supreme Court is ruling that process -- no matter how flawed -- should trump truth. Even when the state may execute an innocent party.
This is certainly cruel -- but it will no longer be unusual. The Supreme Court just codified it as a feature in the system.
Which brings the analysis back to Clarence Thomas.
As summarized in the book review above, the jurisprudence of Thomas might be boiled down to this:
The world is racist, society will never be fair, the justice system will never be fair so there's no point in trying to regulate anything, there's no point in trying to balance the power of the state and large corporations against the individual, just shut up, keep your head down, climb into the machine and stay away from any of the bigger cogs in the system to avoid getting crushed. If you do get pulled into the gears and pureed, hey, I told you the world isn't fair.
A psychoanalysis of Clarence Thomas might be boiled down to this:
Somebody hurt me. I'm never going to forget it. I'm never going to forgive the people responsible. The world wasn't fair for me so I'm not even going to try to make it fair for anyone else. Just de-regulate everything and do away with the charade of aiming for justice. Let the whole system do what it's going to do. Let God sort 'em out.
That is one sick, nihilistic, twisted worldview for anyone in power to have, much less a Justice on the Supreme Court. Yet that theme is present in nearly EVERY majority or minority opinion written by Thomas. He seems to aspire to nothing more than being a one-man wrecking ball against any aspect of law aimed at correcting the balance of power between the individual and the state / society.
WTH
