The transcript for the argument in Thompkins (the Miranda case) is here.
The transcript for the argument in Holland (the statute of limitations case) is here.
Thompkins
The Thompkins argument was particularly interesting. There was a fascinating debate (well, as fascinating as these things can get) about what it means to waive Miranda rights.
In my post on the case, I was worried about a Musladin problem. The argument did not bear this out. The judges, save one, mostly questioned the attorneys about whether this was an unreasonable application of the Court's prior cases. So that's a good thing.
Of course, Scalia did try to shoehorn Musladin into the case. A big part of the debate centered over whether there could be an implicit waiver of Miranda rights. The petitioner in Thompkins never explicitly waived his rights and then was interrogated for over two hours before giving a statement. Respondent argued that it was okay for the police to do this and that, essentially, the act of speaking after only two hours of interrogation was an implicit waiver.
Scalia jumped in during this analysis with a supposed Musladin solution. He asked, "Wait. Do -- do we have any case that says that 2 and a quarter hours is too long?" Respondent said no. Scalia clarified, "And that there can't be a waiver after 2 and a quarter hours?" Respondent again said no. Scalia concluded, "And therefore there is no clearly established Supreme Court law that 2 and a quarter hours is too long. . . . Isn't that the name of the game here?"
It also came up a little during petitioner's argument time, with the judge's quizzing counsel about what the clearly established rules were. However, it wasn't the main focus.
So, based on the Respondent portion of the argument, Scalia does seem to want to get rid of this case under Musladin. We can venture to guess that Thomas would probably look at it this way as well since he did author Musladin. But none of the other judges seemed to focus on the lack of any "clearly established law" here. That gives petitioner a chance at victory. But if I had to guess, I'd say that it's going to be a 5-4 loss for petitioner.
Holland
As for Holland, I do get the sense that the Court will conclude that an attorney's gross negligence can equitably toll the statute of limitations. I am guessing that it will be 7-2, with Scalia and Thomas dissenting.
SCOTUSblog had raised the issue that the Supreme Court has never held that the limitations period can be equitably tolled.
Scalia was the only judge to raise this issue at argument. And Ginsburg shut it down quickly and effectively.
Here's what happened. During petitioner's argument, Scalia asked, "We've never held that equitable tolling for anything is available under this statute of limitations here." He then went on to explain all the reasons why this statute of limitations period is different from all others. He seemed very convinced of the merits of this argument.
Counsel began to respond, but Ginsburg cut him off. She asked, "How many circuits have said that there is equitable tolling?" Counsel said 11 and that it was an open question in one other circuit. Ginsburg responded, "Then it's the question of what are exceptional circumstances."
Scalia later said that simply because 11 circuits have held this way doesn't make it correct. But, as far as I can tell, no other judge bought into this position.*
*Except for Thomas, obviously. Since he never asks questions at argument, it's difficult to know what he is going to do in any particular case. Nevertheless, it's a safe guess to predict that he will probably agree with this position based on his usual antagonism towards habeas petitioners.
Comments