In a close case, Scalia again sides with the criminally accused
Justice Antonin Scalia has a well-earned reputation as the most ideologically conservative member of the U.S. Supreme Court; consequently, I think many imagine him as a fire breathing, law-and-order jurist who worships unreservedly at the Altar of the State's Case. But Justice Scalia proved again today why he is, in my judgment, among the justices most sympathetic to the rights of criminal defendants.
From the syllabus in Smith v. Massachusetts:
Petitioner was tried before a Massachusetts jury on charges related to a shooting, including unlawful possession of a firearm. At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, petitioner moved for a not-guilty finding on the firearm count because "the evidence [was] insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction." [citation omitted]
The trial judge granted the motion, finding no evidence to support the requirement of the unlawful possession count that the firearm have a barrel shorter than 16 inches. The prosecution rested, and the trial proceeded on the other counts. Before closing argument, the prosecution argued that under Massachusetts precedent, the victim’s testimony that the defendant shot him with a "pistol" or "revolver" sufficed to establish barrel length. The judge "reversed" her previous ruling, allowing the firearm count to go to the jury. The jury convicted petitioner on all counts.
In affirming, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause was not implicated because the trial judge's correction of her ruling had not subjected petitioner to a second prosecution or proceeding, and held that [a state rule of criminal procedure] did not prohibit the judge from reconsidering her decision.
The Supreme Court reversed.
Resolution of this case was close, as evidenced by not only the vote, 5 to 4, but also by the odd line up of justices: Scalia, O'Connor and Thomas (conservatives) and Stevens and Souter (liberals) in the majority; and Ginsburg and Breyer (liberals) and Rehnquist and Kennedy (conservatives) dissenting. But in a close case implicating the rights of the criminally accused, where is Justice Scalia? Siding with the defendant.
It's not the first time.