by Yvette Carnell
One of the saddest aspects of our criminal justice system is that it tends to only exaggerate its initial findings, even if evidence flows
down the pipeline which casts doubt on those findings. Once a frame is firmly in place, it is repeated during the lead up to the trial and cemented during the final oral arguments, truth be damned.
Alpha prosecutors are in it for the win, not to be shepherds for justice, certainly not shepherds that would be in any way recognizable to laymen. More often than is acceptable for a system that self-styles itself as impartial, the accused and convicted are relegated to positions of disempowerment, where there lies little chance to meaningfully challenge the system.
So I’m not surprised that the state of Alabama does not provide appeals attorneys to its inmates. I’m also not shocked that, after Alabama death row inmate Cory Maples solicited attorneys to file his appeal, they dipped out on him without as much as a phone call or a letter to the court. Inmates are the throwaways in our society, so the fact that these two hotshot attorneys from Sullivan & Cromwell left the firm and didn’t think to alert their client, causing him to miss his appeals deadline, is par for the course.
What is shocking is that when Maples sought redress with the Supreme Court, two Justices thought that doing the right thing would send the wrong message. Both Justice Thomas and Scalia used the “what if everybody does it” rationale, positing the theory that if Maples were granted his appeal, then all convicts could now seek appeals based on the premise that they’d been abandoned by their attorneys. But that rickety rationale sidesteps the charge both these men were given; to decide on the fairness or unfairness of a judicial action based upon law and precedent. And why didn’t Justice Thomas explore the flipside of the question, which is; what happens if all attorneys abandon their clients? Is that the recipe for a fair judicial system?
What does the right to an attorney really mean if an accused can be summarily abandoned by his counsel? These are the issues which should be addressed by serious Justices who are willing to bear the full weight of their position and responsibility. But Clarence Thomas has never been that. He is a man apart. And again, he and his lifelong mentor – Scalia – were the only two dissenting opinions.
In the end, The Supreme Court did the right thing, and in a 7-2 decision, gave the inmate a second chance to file his appeal. I guess, this is just another blemish on the already tattered and torn legacy of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Yvette Carnell is a former Capitol Hill and campaign staffer turned writer. She is currently an editor and contributor to Yourblackworld.
