The Workermonkey

Saturday, September 24, 2005

just how pro-technicality are you? 

# posted by josh @ 9/24/2005 10:42:00 PM

here's a hypo for you guys. comes up a lot in law. say someone commits a crime. pick your crime of choice, it doesnt matter for the hypo. ok now stop fantasizing about your crime and pay attention.

assume the defendant, who has committed the crime, successfully convinces the state supreme court that one of his rights under his state constitution has been violated, and therefore he is found not guilty. but in reporting its decision, the state supreme court cites some federal cases and does not specify that the decision is based upon the state constitution separate and distinct from the federal questions of the federal cases. so then the united states supreme court reverses the state supreme court decision, and the defendant is found to be guilty.

what should the outcome be? after all, defendant did commit the crime. but the state supreme court found him not guilty based on a right from the state constitution, so shouldn't he be found not guilty? is it wrong for the supreme court to reverse simply because the state court fails to include specific language in its decision? and finally, am i a casebook writer? what's wrong with me?

6 comments

many, many things.

By  josh, at Sunday, September 25, 2005 2:16:00 AM  

If the person can be clearly found guilty, then so what if there is a technecality in the State's constitution. Unless the right violation actually lead to to the crime or the conviction, it should not matter.

By  Damon, at Sunday, September 25, 2005 2:18:00 AM  

well that was my point. even though the guy committed the crime, assume the prosecution didnt have enough w/o the evidence obtained by violating the defendant's right.

By  josh, at Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:08:00 AM  

Oh ok, my opinion is that if the violation is directly related then it counts, if not, irrelevant.

By  Damon, at Sunday, September 25, 2005 12:09:00 PM  

I may be only half understanding the case you are presenting here but... it is my take (maybe from that one environmental law class in college) that the federal courts always trumps the states. In this case the state found him not-guilty due to the state constitution. However the state must still obey the federal constitution (being the highest power). It is set up like this for a reason- for example, Kansas could enact a constitution that burns all Aetheists at a stake. The Feds could then step in and say that is actually unconstitutional. We are the U.S.A. but still one nation goddamn it.

By  Brancibeer, at Monday, September 26, 2005 10:04:00 AM  

haha, everything you said is true brancy, except that there are certain cases in which federal courts dont automatically have jurisdiction. they can't hear just anything.

state constitutions have provisions which arent in the federal constitution. what i tried to do here is make it where the state constitution was violated but the US constitution was not.

what i meant to have happen was for the supreme court to overturn based on the federal law found in the federal cases which were cited (though not relied on). but basically, my hypo was more confusing and vague than anything.

By  josh, at Monday, September 26, 2005 11:02:00 AM  

Post a Comment