WEBVTT - SCOTUS Throws Out Death Sentence in Jury Bias Case

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight an analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. It's a decades

0:00:22.480 --> 0:00:25.880
<v Speaker 1>long legal saga that hasn't ended yet. Today, the Supreme

0:00:25.920 --> 0:00:29.240
<v Speaker 1>Court throughout the death sentence of a Mississippi man convicted

0:00:29.280 --> 0:00:32.640
<v Speaker 1>at his sixth trial for a quadruple murder after the

0:00:32.680 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor repeatedly excluded black people from the jury, but he

0:00:37.120 --> 0:00:40.440
<v Speaker 1>can be tried again for a seventh time. Joining me

0:00:40.479 --> 0:00:43.880
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg stop So. Greg

0:00:44.080 --> 0:00:48.120
<v Speaker 1>this involved what's called peremptory challenges to a jury, so

0:00:48.280 --> 0:00:52.600
<v Speaker 1>lawyers can strike jurors without stating a reason explain what

0:00:52.680 --> 0:00:57.480
<v Speaker 1>happened here. So what happened here is that the man,

0:00:57.800 --> 0:01:02.240
<v Speaker 1>Curtis Flowers, was try six different times for the same

0:01:02.960 --> 0:01:10.319
<v Speaker 1>uh crimes the murders from and prosecutors in those six

0:01:10.440 --> 0:01:15.479
<v Speaker 1>trials actually the same prosecutor, District Attorney Doug Evans, used

0:01:15.520 --> 0:01:20.280
<v Speaker 1>peremptory challenges to strike forty one out of forty two

0:01:20.520 --> 0:01:25.319
<v Speaker 1>prospective black jurors from those UH jury panels, and the

0:01:25.360 --> 0:01:28.520
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court looked at this case and said, you know,

0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:32.400
<v Speaker 1>if you look at the history of it, um, it's

0:01:32.400 --> 0:01:36.120
<v Speaker 1>clear that that he has used race intentionally, and so

0:01:36.200 --> 0:01:41.960
<v Speaker 1>we're going to throw out his latest conviction. Now, the

0:01:41.959 --> 0:01:47.440
<v Speaker 1>the in the dissent were Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorcich.

0:01:47.520 --> 0:01:51.200
<v Speaker 1>And this was a case where Justice Thomas actually asked

0:01:51.200 --> 0:01:57.320
<v Speaker 1>a question. He did. Yes, this was Justice Thomas almost

0:01:57.360 --> 0:01:59.920
<v Speaker 1>never asked questions. In this one. At the very end

0:02:00.080 --> 0:02:03.880
<v Speaker 1>of the argument, he asked whether he asked Mr Flowers's

0:02:03.960 --> 0:02:10.360
<v Speaker 1>attorney whether his lawyer at trial had exercised perempty peremptory

0:02:10.400 --> 0:02:13.799
<v Speaker 1>challenges as well to strike white jerors from the panel. Now,

0:02:13.840 --> 0:02:16.880
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court has has said that the problem, uh

0:02:17.040 --> 0:02:20.360
<v Speaker 1>is not that defendants are using peremptory challenges in a

0:02:20.400 --> 0:02:23.880
<v Speaker 1>discriminatory manner. The thing we're worried about here is prosecutors

0:02:23.919 --> 0:02:26.639
<v Speaker 1>doing that, because that would mean a criminal defendant may

0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:30.720
<v Speaker 1>not be getting a fair trial. UM. This came up

0:02:31.080 --> 0:02:36.880
<v Speaker 1>in his Justice Thomas's descent UH to a small degree um. Uh.

0:02:37.360 --> 0:02:41.000
<v Speaker 1>He is a very strongly worded descent um, in which

0:02:41.000 --> 0:02:45.400
<v Speaker 1>he ended by saying that, Um, the Court's opinion might

0:02:45.480 --> 0:02:49.160
<v Speaker 1>boost it self esteem, but it needlessly prolongs the suffering

0:02:49.160 --> 0:02:52.160
<v Speaker 1>of the four victims families. He said, the only redeeming

0:02:52.240 --> 0:02:56.040
<v Speaker 1>quality of the opinion was that Mississippi can prosecute flowers again,

0:02:56.320 --> 0:02:59.320
<v Speaker 1>which it can, and UH, we'll wait to find out

0:02:59.400 --> 0:03:03.000
<v Speaker 1>whether or not it will do so now. In another case,

0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:06.680
<v Speaker 1>in a five to four decision along ideological lines, the

0:03:06.720 --> 0:03:10.080
<v Speaker 1>Court overturned to more than thirty year old precedent and

0:03:10.200 --> 0:03:13.519
<v Speaker 1>made it easier for landowners to sue for compensation when

0:03:13.520 --> 0:03:18.680
<v Speaker 1>a government regulation reduces the value of their property. What

0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:23.240
<v Speaker 1>happened here, So this has to do with the Constitution's

0:03:23.320 --> 0:03:26.840
<v Speaker 1>taking clause, which says that, UM, the government can't take

0:03:26.880 --> 0:03:31.200
<v Speaker 1>your property without giving you just compensation. Um. And the

0:03:31.280 --> 0:03:34.160
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court in the past had said, UM, if you're

0:03:34.160 --> 0:03:36.720
<v Speaker 1>trying to vindicate your rights under that, you first have

0:03:36.840 --> 0:03:40.240
<v Speaker 1>to deal with the state court system. And sometimes a

0:03:40.280 --> 0:03:42.200
<v Speaker 1>property owner thinks that he or she doesn't get as

0:03:42.200 --> 0:03:44.880
<v Speaker 1>good as a shake in the state court system. Uh.

0:03:44.920 --> 0:03:47.280
<v Speaker 1>This was the case involving a woman who owns some

0:03:47.400 --> 0:03:51.880
<v Speaker 1>rural property in Pennsylvania. There's a local ordinance that UM

0:03:52.360 --> 0:03:56.560
<v Speaker 1>and her property apparently has a very old cemetery on it,

0:03:56.640 --> 0:03:59.600
<v Speaker 1>and there's a local ordinance that now says that she

0:03:59.680 --> 0:04:02.600
<v Speaker 1>has to provide open access to that for people who

0:04:02.600 --> 0:04:05.680
<v Speaker 1>want to visit the cemetery. And the question for the

0:04:05.720 --> 0:04:07.760
<v Speaker 1>court was, did she have to go through the state

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:11.560
<v Speaker 1>court system to attempt to get compensation for what you

0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:14.400
<v Speaker 1>said is a decrease in the value of her property?

0:04:14.560 --> 0:04:16.960
<v Speaker 1>Or can't she go straight to the federal court? In

0:04:16.960 --> 0:04:20.520
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court throwing out a precedent, said she can

0:04:20.560 --> 0:04:24.800
<v Speaker 1>go straight to federal court. Now. Justice Elena Kagan wrote

0:04:24.839 --> 0:04:29.720
<v Speaker 1>in a sharply worded dissent for the UH for justices

0:04:29.800 --> 0:04:33.440
<v Speaker 1>that the decision smashes a hundred years Excuse me, the

0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:36.840
<v Speaker 1>decision smashes a hundred plus years of legal rulings to

0:04:37.000 --> 0:04:42.600
<v Speaker 1>smithereens Why were the liberal justices lined up in the

0:04:42.600 --> 0:04:47.640
<v Speaker 1>minority in this case? Well, so, there are several things

0:04:47.680 --> 0:04:51.600
<v Speaker 1>going on here. Uh. First, these claims, these takings claims

0:04:51.600 --> 0:04:56.240
<v Speaker 1>and seeking just compensation are are a type that conservatives

0:04:56.240 --> 0:05:00.240
<v Speaker 1>have traditionally been more sympathetic towards UM. But the the

0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:03.520
<v Speaker 1>liberals on the court Supreme Court these days are clearly

0:05:03.640 --> 0:05:07.599
<v Speaker 1>quite worried about where things are headed. The Court UH

0:05:07.720 --> 0:05:11.560
<v Speaker 1>several weeks ago overturned the precedent involving sovereign immunity. That

0:05:11.640 --> 0:05:15.680
<v Speaker 1>was the one that left Justice Stephen Bryer Um saying

0:05:15.760 --> 0:05:18.159
<v Speaker 1>today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases

0:05:18.200 --> 0:05:21.680
<v Speaker 1>the Court will overrule next. And Justice Kagan, in her

0:05:21.680 --> 0:05:25.680
<v Speaker 1>descent today um invoked that statement and said, well, that

0:05:25.760 --> 0:05:29.159
<v Speaker 1>didn't take long. Now one may wonder yet again. So

0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:32.520
<v Speaker 1>the liberals are worried that the conservative block on the

0:05:32.560 --> 0:05:36.039
<v Speaker 1>Court is going to move very quickly ahead to overturn precedents,

0:05:36.040 --> 0:05:41.200
<v Speaker 1>potentially even getting into the precedents involving abortion. And yet

0:05:41.279 --> 0:05:44.719
<v Speaker 1>during Supreme Court confirmation hearing is the one refrain that

0:05:44.760 --> 0:05:47.960
<v Speaker 1>you always hear, is I am going to respect to precedent.

0:05:49.320 --> 0:05:51.919
<v Speaker 1>It was. It was something that that Brett Kavanaugh talked

0:05:51.920 --> 0:05:54.560
<v Speaker 1>an awful lot about. There is one more case that

0:05:55.240 --> 0:05:58.000
<v Speaker 1>the Course gonna be deciding next week involving an important precedent.

0:05:58.440 --> 0:06:01.760
<v Speaker 1>Um So far, just as Kavan haven't written anything separately

0:06:01.839 --> 0:06:04.520
<v Speaker 1>to to really spell out his views about what he

0:06:04.560 --> 0:06:07.760
<v Speaker 1>thinks about precedent in a Supreme Court opinion, and maybe

0:06:07.760 --> 0:06:11.480
<v Speaker 1>we'll get it then one more week as you say. Now,

0:06:11.520 --> 0:06:15.159
<v Speaker 1>also the court decided to hear a case that could

0:06:15.279 --> 0:06:19.479
<v Speaker 1>upend the work of the oversight board that's tasks with

0:06:19.520 --> 0:06:22.839
<v Speaker 1>pulling Puerto Rico out of its bankruptcy. Yes, this is

0:06:22.839 --> 0:06:25.839
<v Speaker 1>something that happened yesterday. UM. This is a case where

0:06:25.880 --> 0:06:27.880
<v Speaker 1>actually both sides wine the court to take it and

0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:30.400
<v Speaker 1>decided fairly quickly. Uh. So the court is going to

0:06:30.480 --> 0:06:33.400
<v Speaker 1>hear it in in October. What this is about, this

0:06:33.440 --> 0:06:36.479
<v Speaker 1>is the board that is basically, UM doing all the

0:06:36.520 --> 0:06:40.600
<v Speaker 1>work of of of trying to manage the bankruptcy proceedings

0:06:40.800 --> 0:06:44.760
<v Speaker 1>in Puerto Rico, UH get the island back on sound

0:06:44.800 --> 0:06:49.720
<v Speaker 1>financial footing. And the members of the board were appointed

0:06:50.760 --> 0:06:54.080
<v Speaker 1>under provisions in a statute Congress passed a couple of

0:06:54.120 --> 0:06:58.960
<v Speaker 1>years ago where UH President Obama picked the members for

0:06:59.000 --> 0:07:04.239
<v Speaker 1>this board off a list submitted by lawmakers and bond

0:07:04.279 --> 0:07:07.680
<v Speaker 1>holders who UH don't like what the board is doing,

0:07:07.760 --> 0:07:11.840
<v Speaker 1>think they're not getting a big enough uh return on

0:07:11.840 --> 0:07:14.920
<v Speaker 1>on the bonds that they hold. Sued to challenge the

0:07:14.960 --> 0:07:17.560
<v Speaker 1>way the members were appointed. They said it violates the

0:07:17.600 --> 0:07:22.080
<v Speaker 1>Constitution's Appointments clauset. In particular, they they say the Senate

0:07:22.120 --> 0:07:27.400
<v Speaker 1>has to confirm these people. Um, a lower court said, yes, indeed,

0:07:27.440 --> 0:07:31.320
<v Speaker 1>this does violate the appointments clause, but we're not going

0:07:31.360 --> 0:07:34.080
<v Speaker 1>to invalidate all the stuff that the Board has done

0:07:34.200 --> 0:07:37.120
<v Speaker 1>in the past. So now both sides are appealing that

0:07:37.560 --> 0:07:41.080
<v Speaker 1>that the the Board and the Trump administration are asking

0:07:41.120 --> 0:07:44.120
<v Speaker 1>the court to reinstate to say that the members were

0:07:44.120 --> 0:07:47.440
<v Speaker 1>properly appointed, and the bond holders are asking the Supreme

0:07:47.480 --> 0:07:50.520
<v Speaker 1>Court to say that we need to wipe out at

0:07:50.600 --> 0:07:53.360
<v Speaker 1>least some of the decisions the Board has made in

0:07:53.400 --> 0:07:55.760
<v Speaker 1>the past. All right, thanks so much, Greg, rest up

0:07:55.800 --> 0:07:59.560
<v Speaker 1>this weekend because next week we have twelve cases, including

0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:05.440
<v Speaker 1>the census question and part is in gerrymandering. Thanks for

0:08:05.560 --> 0:08:08.800
<v Speaker 1>listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and

0:08:08.880 --> 0:08:12.120
<v Speaker 1>listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on

0:08:12.200 --> 0:08:16.920
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is

0:08:16.960 --> 0:08:17.560
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg