Justice Souter Calls Lawyer’s Argument ‘Utterly Irrational’
A lawyer for the state of Tennessee defending prosecutors’ decision to withhold evidence in a death penalty trial encountered skeptical and indignant questioning from several justices on Tuesday.
“There were flashes of incredulity and anger from justices” during the oral arguments, the New York Times reports. At issue is when federal courts may reconsider state court rulings in death penalty cases, according to the story. But oral arguments focused on prosecutors’ failure to turn over the evidence.
The defendant, Gary Cone, had admitted murdering a Memphis couple, but his lawyer had claimed he committed the crime in an amphetamine psychosis, the Times says. Prosecutors called the defense “baloney” while withholding police reports and witness statements from the defense saying Cone was a heavy drug user.
The U.S. Supreme Court has twice upheld the death sentence for Cone, but arguments Tuesday raised the possibility that this time the court will overturn it, the Washington Post reports.
Jennifer Smith, a lawyer in the state attorney general’s office, faced tough questions from Justice Stephen G. Breyer about why the evidence was withheld, the Post says.
“You’re saying that the lawyer, the trained lawyer for the government, who knew this information and knew the defense, just what? Just overlooked it by accident? Just what?” Breyer demanded to know.
Justice David H. Souter pursued a line of questioning about whether the undisclosed evidence would have helped Cone, according to the two newspaper accounts. Smith finally said it would not have benefited the defendant.
“I will be candid with you,” Souter responded. “I simply cannot follow your argument because I believe you have just made a statement to me that is utterly irrational.”
