The New Supremes: Putting Procedure First
By Colin T. Darke
Colin T. Darke is an associate in the Worcester, MA, office of Mirick O'Connell DeMallie & Lougee, LLP. He can be reached at ctdarke@modl.com.The United States Supreme Court’s 2005 Term (October 3, 2005, through October 1, 2006) began with a new Chief Justice, John Roberts, and a new Associate Justice, Samuel Alito. This new Supreme Court decided issues as diverse as the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the rights of a church to use hallucinogenic tea in its religious services. Here, I review two procedural sagas decided by the new Court.
Marshall v. Marshall
One case that grabbed headlines for its soap opera-like cast of characters was Marshall v. Marshall (former Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith versus her son-in-law E. Pierce Marshall, who was 32 years her senior). While the background story of this case gave fodder to numerous tabloids, the actual issue before the Court was a lot less scandalous: What is the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction?
Anna Nicole ( Marshall was her married name and Vickie Lynn Hogan is her birth name) filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Pierce filed a proof of claim in her bankruptcy case, and then he initiated a proceeding to have his claim deemed nondischargeable. Pierce’s claim was based on his assertion that Anna Nicole defamed him when her lawyers stated that Pierce cheated her out of her rightful inheritance. Anna Nicole answered by asserting truth as a defense and counterclaimed by asserting tortious interference with a gift expectancy.
Pierce responded with the probate exception arguing that because Anna Nicole’s deceased husband’s estate was being administered by the state probate court, that court was the proper forum to decide the issues presented in their case. The bankruptcy court and the district court sided with Anna Nicole, rejecting Pierce’s assertion that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction because
of the probate exception. The Ninth Circuit, however, sided with Pierce and read the probate exception expansively to preclude federal jurisdiction to pretty much anything that relates to a pending probate matter.
The Supreme Court reined in the Ninth Circuit’s expansive ruling and held that the probate exception was a narrow exception. The Court found that the probate exception stands only for the proposition that one court cannot assert authority over property that is properly under the control of another court. Anna Nicole prevailed because her tort claim was not property that was in the control of the state probate court. So, Anna Nicole’s saga continues with guidance from Roberts’s Supreme Court.
Holmes v. South Carolina
Another decision of note is Holmes v. South Carolina. Holmes (who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death) sought to introduce evidence that another person, Jimmy McCraw White, was in the victim’s neighborhood at the time of the crime, and that White made certain statements that either admitted his own liability or acknowledged that Holmes was innocent. During White’s pretrial testimony, White denied that he made any such comments and also provided an alibi for the time in question. Based on White’s testimony and the prosecutor’s strong forensic evidence, the trial court denied Holmes’s ability to introduce the proffered evidence of White’s guilt. The state supreme court affirmed the trial court’s holding, ruling that “where there is strong forensic evidence of an appellant’s guilt, proffered
evidence about a third-party’s alleged guilt does not raise a reasonable inference as to the appellant’s own innocence.” The state supreme court held that Holmes could not overcome the forensic evidence offered against him, and, as such, the conviction was upheld.
The United States Supreme Court held that the state supreme court’s standard was unconstitutional because it deprived criminal defendants their constitutional right of “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” The Court also stated how there are legitimate evidentiary standards in place that are used by courts to exclude evidence, including evidence of a third-party’s guilt, based on weighing the evidence’s probative value against such factors as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or the potential to mislead the jury. The Court noted that the state’s standard did not weigh such factors; rather, it merely weighed the strength of the prosecutor’s case. Holmes returns to the state court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s procedural ruling.
Marshall and Holmes give just a glimpse of the new Supreme Court and may provide insight into the Court’s stance on such important procedural questions of what weight the Court will give (1) to state exceptions to federal jurisdiction and (2) to state standards that fail to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of both parties’ positions. If you find substance more interesting than procedure, keep alert for two questions on the Court’s docket for the current term:
1. Thomas (warden) v. Musladin: Did wearing buttons to a murder trial depicting the murder victim improperly influence the jury?
2. Philip Morris v. Williams: Were punitive damages properly assessed against “Big Tobacco” because its behavior was “highly reprehensible and analogous to crime”?
Stay tuned.
