Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Defendant Who Missed Benefit of Redaction Ruling
In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled too late for Eric Greene, convicted of second-degree murder, robbery and conspiracy for his role in a robbery.
The Supreme Court upheld Greene’s conviction today in a decision that dealt with the timing of the 1998 decision and whether it amounted to clearly established federal law for purposes of the inmate’s habeas appeal. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the court.
Greene had sought to sever his trial from that of four co-conspirators also accused in the 1993 slaying of a North Philadelphia grocery store owner in a robbery. Two of the co-defendants had confessed. A trial court refused Greene’s motion to sever and allowed introduction of the confessions implicating Greene, with proper names redacted. Greene was convicted and an intermediate Pennsylvania appeals court affirmed, ruling the redactions had not violated Greene’s constitutional rights.
About three months later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled redactions that obviously refer to a defendant can violate the confrontation clause. Greene argued he is entitled to habeas relief because the constitutional error violated clearly established federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in Greene v. Fisher.
Greene apparently missed an earlier opportunity to overturn his conviction on the basis of the 1998 decision. According to the Supreme Court, he could have sought cert with U.S. Supreme Court after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, “which would almost certainly have produced a remand” in light of the 1998 decision. Nor did Greene cite the 1998 decision in a petition for state postconviction relief.
“We must observe that Greene’s predicament is an unusual one of his own creation,” Scalia wrote.
SCOTUSblog, How Appealing and the Associated Press noted the ruling.
