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."
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."
\u201cThe first ever public defender on the Supreme Court's first published opinion is defending the rights of a man sentenced to death who was not given access to evidence at trial.\n\nhttps://t.co/WTeWcE9u0t\u201d— Demand Justice (@Demand Justice) 1667832214
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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just days away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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."
\u201cThe first ever public defender on the Supreme Court's first published opinion is defending the rights of a man sentenced to death who was not given access to evidence at trial.\n\nhttps://t.co/WTeWcE9u0t\u201d— Demand Justice (@Demand Justice) 1667832214
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."
\u201cThe first ever public defender on the Supreme Court's first published opinion is defending the rights of a man sentenced to death who was not given access to evidence at trial.\n\nhttps://t.co/WTeWcE9u0t\u201d— Demand Justice (@Demand Justice) 1667832214
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."