What's at stake in Metrish v. Lancaster

By Associate Visiting Clinical Professor Lara Bazelon

In the Supreme Court case of Metrish v. Lancaster, the state appeals the finding of the Sixth Circuit's grant of habeas relief to Burt Lancaster (no relation to the actor), who was twice tried and found guilty for the murder of his girlfriend. In the first trial, Lancaster raised both insanity and diminished capacity defenses. The jury rejected both, but because of an unrelated constitutional error, the conviction was set aside.

At the second trial, Lancaster again sought to raise the insanity defense. In the interim, however, the Michigan Supreme Court abolished the defense. That decision was applied to Lancaster retroactively. Lancaster was once again convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

After exhausting his state court appeals, Lancaster filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Lancaster lost in the district court, but prevailed before a divided panel of Sixth Circuit judges, which granted the writ after finding that Lancaster's due process rights were violated.

To find in Lancaster's favor, the panel had to clear two exceptionally high hurdles erected by the United States Supreme Court's retroactivity and habeas jurisprudence. On the retroactivity front, the court of appeals had to find that the Michigan courts' abolition of the diminished capacity defense was "unexpected and indefensible." On the habeas front, the bar was even higher: the Sixth Circuit had to find that the Michigan courts' decision to apply retroactively to Lancaster its "unexpected and indefensible" decision was "so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement" among reasonable jurists.

You may be wondering exactly what kind of habeas petitioner could possibly prevail under either standard, much less both. I'm not sure I know the answer, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Lancaster.

The dissenting judge on the Sixth Circuit panel laid bare the shaky foundations of her colleagues' opinion. Simply put, the majority could not overcome a standard of review so highly deferential that it allowed federal judges to grant relief to state court petitioners only in cases of "extreme malfunctions in the states' criminal justice systems."

My take: This dissent, coupled with SCOTUS' decision to grant cert, signals swift reversal.

Maples v. Thomas: Putting the "Just" Back into Justice

By Professor Laurie Levenson

Last week, the United States Supreme Court decided Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. ___ (2012). Technically, the case was about whether Cory Maples, who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, would be able to overcome a procedural hurdle in the federal habeas corpus laws and seek relief in federal court. The problem arose when Maples' pro bono lawyers from the prestigious law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell abandoned him, causing him to miss the deadline for appealing the denial of his state habeas corpus petition.

The Supreme Court unquestionably reached the right result when it ruled that there was cause for the procedural default and that Maples' lawyers' blunder should not undermine his ability to seek habeas relief. However, what was most interesting about the decision was not the technical legal analysis. It was the language Justice Ginsburg used to emphasize why the Court would be ruling the way it did.

She began her decision by stating that "no just system would lay the default at Maples' death-cell door...." (emphasis added). In other words, it is time to put the "just" back into "justice." The laws are full of procedural hurdles for defendants seeking to attack their convictions, but defendants should not bear the brunt of mistakes committed by their lawyers. This is especially true in a system where some states cap defense attorney fees at $1,000 for out-of-court work and these lawyers are paid only $70 per hour. Clients abandoned by counsel should not be left without recourse. The goal should be a "just "system. That system has costs and it is time to open our eyes to them.

While Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, conservative Justice Samuel Alito concurred. He stated that this case presented the "perfect storm of misfortune" leading to the deprivation of Maples' legal representation. He may be right that this was the perfect storm, but the forecast for future cases does not look particularly sunny. Given the lack of qualified death penalty counsel and the absence of resources to pay them, there will inevitably be more storm clouds ahead.