The transcript in Gonzalez is available here. And the one in Perry is available here.
Unfortunately, I haven't yet had a chance to read either. But I did read through SCOTUSblog's review of the Perry argument and the New York Times article on the argument. Wow. Just wow. I was skeptical that the Court would take the identification issues seriously, but I had no idea it would be that bad. Beyond not really even caring much about the new research on the unreliability of eyewitness identifications, it appears as if some of the judges would like to cut back on the current safeguards.
The logic seems to be that jurys are capable of sifting through all the factors that could potentially lead to an unreliable identification. But that's precisely the point. The research has shown that jurys believe eyewitness identification despite all of the reasons not to. And that has led to more and more wrongful convictions.
It's all so troubling. Society's view on these matters seems to be going in one direction while the Supreme Court seems to be going in the other. What's sad is that the Court used to lead on matters of fairness in the criminal justice system. Now, it seems completely out of touch with the acknowledged problems facing the system. It's a disturbing disjunction.
As for Gonzalez, from the SCOTUSblog review, it looks like the Court intends to focus on the COA issue and a majority of the Court does not seem ready to conclude that it is a jurisdictional requirement. In other words, these judges seem to believe that a defect in a COA order can be cured. As I said before, I just find the whole thing a little nutty.
Comments