SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson poses for an official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on October 7, 2022. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)
Jackson Issues First Dissent Over Supreme Court Refusal to Hear Death Row Appeal
The justice wrote that she would have ordered a new review of Davel Chinn's case because his life "is on the line, and given the substantial likelihood that the suppressed records would have changed the outcome at trial."
Nov 07, 2022
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Monday in her first U.S. Supreme Court opinion--a dissent--that she would have heard the appeal of a man facing execution following a trial in which the prosecution likely suppressed evidence.
Jackson's dissent from the high court's refusal to hear the appeal of Davel Chinn--an Ohio death row inmate convicted of shooting and killing a man named Brian Jones during an attempted robbery in 1989--was joined by left-wing Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
In her two-page opinion, Jackson wrote that "because Chinn's life is on the line, and given the substantial likelihood that the suppressed records would have changed the outcome at trial based on the Ohio courts' own representations... I would summarily reverse to ensure that the 6th Circuit conducts its materiality analysis under the proper standard."
CBS News reports:
Chinn's lawyers argued the state suppressed evidence during his trial showing that its primary witness, Marvin Washington, had an intellectual disability that led to substantial memory problems and affected his ability to distinguish between reality and things he imagined. Washington, who was 15 years old at the time, admitted his involvement in the fatal shooting of Brian Jones, according to court filings, and provided officers with a description of Chinn.
The man's lawyers, however, argued the information about Washington would have made a difference in the outcome of Chinn's case.
"Without Marvin Washington, that state's evidence was not strong enough to sustain confidence in either Chinn's conviction or death sentenced," attorneys at the Ohio Public Defender's Office told the Supreme Court.
Chinn's lawyers argued that the prosecution's omission violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland, the landmark Supreme Court ruling establishing that prosecutors must disclose any evidence that could benefit defendants.
However, lower courts contended that Chinn failed to meet Brady's standard, which holds that evidence is only "material" if there is a reasonable probability its disclosure would result in a different trial outcome. The condemned man's attorneys say it would.
"Justices Jackson and Sotomayor recognized the injustice in upholding Davel Chinn's conviction and death sentence when the state suppressed exculpatory evidence that, based on the Ohio courts' own representations, was likely to result in an acquittal," Rachel Troutman, an attorney for Chinn, said in a statement. "Ohio must not exacerbate the mistakes of the past by pursuing Mr. Chinn's execution."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Monday in her first U.S. Supreme Court opinion--a dissent--that she would have heard the appeal of a man facing execution following a trial in which the prosecution likely suppressed evidence.
Jackson's dissent from the high court's refusal to hear the appeal of Davel Chinn--an Ohio death row inmate convicted of shooting and killing a man named Brian Jones during an attempted robbery in 1989--was joined by left-wing Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
In her two-page opinion, Jackson wrote that "because Chinn's life is on the line, and given the substantial likelihood that the suppressed records would have changed the outcome at trial based on the Ohio courts' own representations... I would summarily reverse to ensure that the 6th Circuit conducts its materiality analysis under the proper standard."
CBS News reports:
Chinn's lawyers argued the state suppressed evidence during his trial showing that its primary witness, Marvin Washington, had an intellectual disability that led to substantial memory problems and affected his ability to distinguish between reality and things he imagined. Washington, who was 15 years old at the time, admitted his involvement in the fatal shooting of Brian Jones, according to court filings, and provided officers with a description of Chinn.
The man's lawyers, however, argued the information about Washington would have made a difference in the outcome of Chinn's case.
"Without Marvin Washington, that state's evidence was not strong enough to sustain confidence in either Chinn's conviction or death sentenced," attorneys at the Ohio Public Defender's Office told the Supreme Court.
Chinn's lawyers argued that the prosecution's omission violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland, the landmark Supreme Court ruling establishing that prosecutors must disclose any evidence that could benefit defendants.
However, lower courts contended that Chinn failed to meet Brady's standard, which holds that evidence is only "material" if there is a reasonable probability its disclosure would result in a different trial outcome. The condemned man's attorneys say it would.
"Justices Jackson and Sotomayor recognized the injustice in upholding Davel Chinn's conviction and death sentence when the state suppressed exculpatory evidence that, based on the Ohio courts' own representations, was likely to result in an acquittal," Rachel Troutman, an attorney for Chinn, said in a statement. "Ohio must not exacerbate the mistakes of the past by pursuing Mr. Chinn's execution."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Monday in her first U.S. Supreme Court opinion--a dissent--that she would have heard the appeal of a man facing execution following a trial in which the prosecution likely suppressed evidence.
Jackson's dissent from the high court's refusal to hear the appeal of Davel Chinn--an Ohio death row inmate convicted of shooting and killing a man named Brian Jones during an attempted robbery in 1989--was joined by left-wing Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
In her two-page opinion, Jackson wrote that "because Chinn's life is on the line, and given the substantial likelihood that the suppressed records would have changed the outcome at trial based on the Ohio courts' own representations... I would summarily reverse to ensure that the 6th Circuit conducts its materiality analysis under the proper standard."
CBS News reports:
Chinn's lawyers argued the state suppressed evidence during his trial showing that its primary witness, Marvin Washington, had an intellectual disability that led to substantial memory problems and affected his ability to distinguish between reality and things he imagined. Washington, who was 15 years old at the time, admitted his involvement in the fatal shooting of Brian Jones, according to court filings, and provided officers with a description of Chinn.
The man's lawyers, however, argued the information about Washington would have made a difference in the outcome of Chinn's case.
"Without Marvin Washington, that state's evidence was not strong enough to sustain confidence in either Chinn's conviction or death sentenced," attorneys at the Ohio Public Defender's Office told the Supreme Court.
Chinn's lawyers argued that the prosecution's omission violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland, the landmark Supreme Court ruling establishing that prosecutors must disclose any evidence that could benefit defendants.
However, lower courts contended that Chinn failed to meet Brady's standard, which holds that evidence is only "material" if there is a reasonable probability its disclosure would result in a different trial outcome. The condemned man's attorneys say it would.
"Justices Jackson and Sotomayor recognized the injustice in upholding Davel Chinn's conviction and death sentence when the state suppressed exculpatory evidence that, based on the Ohio courts' own representations, was likely to result in an acquittal," Rachel Troutman, an attorney for Chinn, said in a statement. "Ohio must not exacerbate the mistakes of the past by pursuing Mr. Chinn's execution."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.