With all the irrational decisions that have been rendered by various judges across our nation recently, could it be that common sense has come to some within the judiciary? One case where common sense eventually ruled the day involved buttons worn by spectators and the second case involved the dismissal of a prospective juror. The third case was an appeal concerning a typographical error.
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on December 11, 2006 that spectators within the courtroom of a murder trial would be allowed to wear buttons with a photo of the victim. Take note that this was a unanimous decision by the court. In this California case, a man was convicted of the 1994 shooting death of his estranged wife’s fiancé (Tom Studer). During the trial and even over the objections of the defense, three members of the murdered man’s family wore buttons adorned with his picture. The request from the defense to not allow the buttons in the courtroom was rejected by the trial judge. Upon appeal, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a new trial. This ruling stated that the buttons “essentially argue that Mr. Studer was the innocent party and that the defendant was guilty.” In the 2-1 decision, the dissenting judge said the buttons were a symbol of a family’s grief. Common sense did rule the day with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A case that will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court during this session involves the removal of a prospective juror from a Washington state death penalty trial due to his statements about capital punishment. This is a case where the convicted murderer raped and tortured an innocent woman for two days prior to dumping her body in a parking lot.
During jury selection, a potential juror convinced the trial judge by his statements that he could not faithfully and impartially apply the law. Therefore, the judge dismissed the potential juror. According to court documents, this potential juror stated that he would favor the death penalty only if it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person has killed and would kill again. To prove that someone would kill in the future is not reasonable. However, the accused in this case was found guilty and sentenced to death. Upon appeal, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial judge to dismiss the prospective juror. But, common sense did not prevail in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision. The Ninth Circuit’s decision overturned the death sentence by concluding that the trial judge erred by dismissing the prospective juror. Hopefully, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court will be a common sense decision.
A third case where common sense did rule the day involved a murder in Cobb County Georgia. Phillip Ray Bailey is accused of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, and two counts of aggravated assault for his roll in the beating death of a Mableton teenager, Jess Sharp. When Bailey was indicted, a juror’s name was misspelled. Bailey’s attorney argued that the typo prevented him from receiving an indictment “perfect in form and substance.” Therefore, the indictment was appealed to Georgia’s Supreme Court and on September 18, 2006, the court ruled that the typo was not sufficient to dismiss the indictment. Common sense did triumph in the court’s decision.
One could conclude that perhaps the legal pendulum is moving toward the center and common sense is once again entering the decisions of our judiciary. However, there are too many ludicrous decisions rendered to reach that conclusion at this time.