Courts

Sullcrom Is Super Proud Of Themselves For Making It Easier For The State To Confine The Innocent

I hope Jones takes some solace in knowing that he may actually be one of the innocent ones.

By  
on

counting marks on wall jailHabeas corpus is a foundational concept for a society that lives under the rule of law. Full stop. Barring rebellion or invasion, it is the procedural lifesaver when a state actor in a position of authority unlawfully detains someone. Jones v. Hendrix dealt with one such case. Marcus Jones was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and given about 27 years in prison. Nineteen years into his sentence, the Supreme Court clarified that for the crime he was convicted of, prosecutors had to prove that the defendant knew that their possession of a gun was illegal.

Two big issues here. The first is that it is plausible for Jones to not have met the knowledge requirement because he thought his record was expunged. The second, and this is the big one, whether he actually knew or not, the prosecution never met its burden of proving that he knew. It doesn’t take the next Learned Hand to recognize that a person thrown behind bars for twenty years without the prosecution proving its case is a clear problem. Jones petitioned for habeas corpus on the ground that the state doesn’t have the authority to confine him because it didn’t prove its case.

In an unfortunate 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court bypassed the issue of Jones’s innocence completely and decided not grant the petition because federal law only grants one bite at the habeas apple and Jones previously filed one. It’s a sad day that someone will spend 20+ years in prison for a conviction that never actually existed.

The majority relies on Congress’ express purpose for §2255 to curb “serious administrative problems” that repeated petitions could create, but they already showed how much disdain they have for Congressional intent in Sackett. They’re just making it up as they go along.

I should clarify. This has been a sad day for some. It’s not stopping the attorneys over at Sullivan & Cromwell, the firm appointed by the Court to argue that Jones shouldn’t have a second habeas petition no matter what, from rubbing the victory in everyone’s faces over on Twitter.

This downright shitty and pompous public display of circlejerking patting oneself on the back quickly got the response one would expect of such a tone-deaf celebration.

Sponsored

I’m also not so sure that this was the uphill battle Jeff Wall makes it out to be. The Solicitor General declined to defend the rationale that Jones couldn’t file a petition under the circumstances, arguing instead that he “would not be entitled to habeas relief even if the question presented were resolved in his favor.” Basically, the government said the record showed that Jones actually did know.

The Court itself appointed Sullcrom to the case to argue the point that the government wouldn’t. So when the Court could’ve just dropped the question, it instead decided it wanted to hear this specific argument and really wanted to hear it from a Biglaw firm. I’m not saying the firm won a fully teed up case…  But congratulations on the participation trophy from the Robert’s court.

I’ll give Jeff Wall this: it takes a brilliant legal mind to shift from what the average person would focus on — a ruling that will strengthen the carceral state made possible by prosecutors failing to meet their burden of proof and imprisoning a man for three decades anyway — to the mere condition of winning a case at the Supreme Court. It’s funny how defensible things are when you strip away the human elements. Not only the man imprisoned since Clinton was in office, but the just-as-human element of Morgan Ratner spending hundreds of hours in a comfortable office — or maybe even the comfort of her own work office –meticulously sinking hours upon hours into brief writing to make sure that a man stays behind bars without due process. What else would you call being imprisoned despite not meeting all of the elements of the crime?

Despite my frustration at the case’s outcome, it does not so cloud my mind that I cannot recognize when someone has made the point better than I have. For that, you’ll have to go to Justice Jackson’s lengthy dissent. Here is just a snippet:

Sponsored

I am also deeply troubled by the constitutional implications of the nothing-to-see-here approach that the majority takes with respect to the incarceration of potential legal innocents. See Part III, infra. Apparently, legally innocent or not, Jones must just carry on in prison regardless, since (as the majority reads §2255) no path exists for him to ask a federal judge to consider his innocence assertion. But forever slamming the courtroom doors to a possibly innocent person who has never had a meaningful opportunity to get a new and retroactively applicable claim for release reviewed on the merits raises serious constitutional concerns.

Thus, in my view, all roads lead to an interpretation of §2255 that is diametrically opposed to the one that the majority announces. Whether one gets there by virtue of a proper reading of §2255(e) or an informed understanding of §2255(h), or by affording due respect to the core constitutional interests at stake, Jones’s successive petition alleging legal innocence should have been considered on the merits. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

But hey, congratulations to Morgan Ratner, Jeff Wall, and the six justices who kept this potentially innocent man behind bars — Chief Justice Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett. This is your legacy. I hope each of you sleeps well tonight. I doubt Marcus Jones will. Prison beds aren’t really known for their comfiness. Or prison, for that matter.

You can read the decision in its entirety here.

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.

Topics

, , , , ,