The U.S.
Supreme Court has refused to
hear the appeal of Webster Smith.
The justices declined to hear the case without comment. The decision of the
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) has become the final decision in
the case. (Note 19)
That is a shame because the military justice
court-martial and the appeal system is not race neutral. A seemingly race
neutral system has operated to deny minority members of the armed forces the
equal protection of law. Institutional racism and racial profiling operating in
a culture that evolved under the system of slavery have reduced Black
appellants to a stereotype and disproportionately predetermines that they will
be convicted and that they will not prevail on appeal.
Since the Coast Guard is in the Department Of
Homeland Security, Smith has the right to submit additional information to
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano before she approves his
sentence.
Smith also has the right to seek a new trial
before the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals. He would have to submit new
evidence that has not already been considered in the case. He could also have
his record cleaned with a presidential pardon. Since he is a resident of Texas
he will have to register as a sex offender.
Most Supreme Court watchers had expected the
Supreme Court to hear the case or at the very least to give an explanation of
why not.
This case
implicated a deep federal circuit conflict regarding the standard of review
that applies when a trial judge’s restriction on the cross-examination of a
prosecution witness is challenged on appeal as a violation of the Confrontation
Clause. The Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces (CAAF) held that the standard of review is abuse of
discretion rather than de novo. Applying the former standard, the court
rejected Webster Smith’s Confrontation Clause claim by a vote of 3-2.
The Courts Of
Appeals Are Deeply Divided Over What Standard Of Review Applies To
Confrontation Clause Claims Like Webster Smith’s. The CAAF employed
abuse-of-discretion review in resolving Smith’s Sixth Amendment challenge to
the military judge’s restriction on the defense’s cross-examination of SR. That
approach conflicts with the holdings of five circuits, which consider
comparable
Confrontation
Clause claims de novo, reserving abuse-of-discretion review for
non-constitutional challenges. For example, the Seventh Circuit has stated that
“[o]rdinarily, a district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of
discretion.
However, when
the restriction [on cross-examination] implicates the criminal defendant’s
Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, ... the standard of
review becomes de novo.”
The First,
Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have adopted the same approach.
Six other
circuits, by contrast—the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eleventh, and District
of Columbia Circuits— Take the same
approach that CAAF does, applying abuse-of-discretion review even when a
restriction on the cross-examination of a prosecution witness is attacked on
constitutional grounds. The Sixth Circuit, for example, stated in one case that
“[defendant] argues that his right to confrontation was violated when the trial
court ‘unfairly’ limited his cross-examination of [a] government witness .… We
review the district court’s restriction on a defendant’s right to cross-examine
witnesses for abuse of discretion.”
In short,
CAAF’s use of an abuse-of-discretion standard in this case perpetuated a
clear—and recognized—conflict in the circuits.
The Question
Presented Was Recurring And Important, And The Smith Case Was A Good Vehicle
For Deciding It.
The circuit
conflict at issue warranted resolution by the Supreme Court. The
constitutionality of restrictions on cross-examination arises frequently in
criminal prosecutions, and in every part of the country. Those cases also show
that the conflict over the standard for appellate review of such restrictions
is established; there is no benefit to be gained by giving the lower courts
additional time to consider the issue. Moreover, the question presented was
important, because the standard of review can determine the outcome of an
appeal. The difference between a rule of deference and the duty to exercise
independent review is much more than a mere matter of degree. In even
moderately close cases, the standard of review may be dispositive of an
appellate court’s decision. That is particularly true when one standard is
highly deferential: CAAF, for example, has stated that “the abuse of discretion
standard is a strict one,” satisfied only when “[t]he challenged action [is]
arbitrary, fanciful, clearly unreasonable, or clearly erroneous".
Also, non-uniformity
created by the conflict directly affects a fundamental individual right. Some
defendants in criminal cases enjoy less protection of the critical right to
confront their accusers because of the fortuity of where their trials were
held, or, as to cases decided by CAAF, because they have chosen to wear the
nation’s uniform.
The Webster
Smith case presented a good vehicle to resolve the circuit conflict. Webster
Smith’s standard-of-review argument was both pressed and passed upon in the
court of appeals, rendering the issue suitable for review by certiorari. In
addition, CAAF’s rejection of Smith’s argument may well have determined the
ultimate outcome. Even applying highly deferential review, CAAF was narrowly
divided as to the constitutionality of the military judge’s ruling in this
case. If even one of the three judges who deemed that ruling not to be an abuse
of discretion were to conclude, upon reviewing without deference, that it was
inconsistent with the Sixth Amendment, Webster Smith would have prevailed.
Justice truly
was not served in this case. American justice has been given a black eye. All
American citizens cannot expect the equal protections of the law guaranteed by
the United States Constitution. Even those who put on the uniforms of the Armed
Forces of the United States of America and swear to defend and to protect the
Constitution cannot rely upon its legal guarantees. The Case of Webster Smith
is but one grain of sand upon the beaches of American justice. May God save us
all from an experience like this at the bar of American justice.
Labels: Cadet Webster Smith.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home