The Life or Death of Marion Wilson

It appears that the life or death of Marion Wilson Jr., pictured here,may turn on a dry-seeming point of appellate procedure, and an even more obscure seeming question in the interpretation of a precedent.

First: should a federal appellate court look through a "summary decision" to review the last REASONED judicial decision in the hierarchical chain?

Second, did the Supreme Court decision in HARRINGTON v. RICHTER implicitly answer that question "no," silently abrogating an earlier look-through rule?

Here's a link to a brief discussion of where the case of WILSON v. SELLERS now stands.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-6855

Wilson's appellate attorney petitioned for a new trial on the basis of the alleged incompetence of his original trial attorney. There were other arguments too, which I'll ignore for the moment. The superior court denied that petition, and the attorney then appealed to the state Supreme Court. The state high court issued a one sentence order denying the petition. Hence the term "summary decision." No explanation.

Wilson then went into federal district court on a petition of habeas corpus. The district court did two things, (1) it denied relief, but (2) it also kicked the matter upstairs. On the ineffective assistance of counsel grounds the district court granted what is known as a certificate of appealability.

So the appeals court looked into the matter, and here it encountered the look-through question.

It is possible to reach the right conclusion for the wrong reason. With that thought in mind, suppose (for purposes of discussion) that the reasoned explanation by the Georgia Superior Court of why it found the "ineffective assistance of counsel" argument unavailing was in error in some respect -- it gave a 'wrong' reason. But assume, further, that the Georgia Supreme Court had a much better reason in mind. Why wouldn't the Georgia Supreme Court have informed the world of that better reason? Why would it have issued merely a one sentence order? Why not say, "our brethren below reached this conclusion for reason 1. We think reason 1 is misguided, but reason 2 is a good one, so on the basis of 2, we deny this appeal."? Because the one-sentence "appeal denied" is easier?

At any rate, the attorneys seeking to save Wilson's life are arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective, that the reasons given at the lower state court level for denying this were inadequate, and that no other better reasons that the attorneys for Georgia might come up with now really count, since the summary judgment effectively accepts the lower court's reasoning.

Here's the URL of a discussion from Scotusblog about the oral arguments before the US Supreme Court on October 31. http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-analysis-quixotic-search-general-meaning-state-court-summary-affirmances/

The older rule was in favor of a look-through, in which case the federal courts should have been deciding whether the state trial court was right in its reasoning, and there is no such thing as being right for the wrong reason in this context after all. But the state contends that HARRINGTON v. RICHTER (2011) overturned that old principle and allowed for a summary ruling by an intervening rung on the ladder to be read expansively.

Oddly, perhaps, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the HARRINGTON decision, didn't have anything to say about that during oral argument.

That life or death turns on these points seems passing strange. Oral argument on Halloween? That was fitting.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog