Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Supreme Court Rejects Medical Transport of Prisoner in Habeas Case
Source: Bloomberg News
The US Supreme Court ruled against an Ohio death row inmate who asked a federal court to order his transportation to a hospital for a neurological exam.
In a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the courts majority said two lower courts were wrong to grant Raymond Twyfords request. The court held a transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not necessary or appropriate in aid of a federal courts adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief.
Read more: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-rejects-medical-transport-of-prisoner-in-habeas-case
Paywall, looking for a better source...
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1293 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court Rejects Medical Transport of Prisoner in Habeas Case (Original Post)
Polybius
Jun 2022
OP
Peregrine Took
(7,412 posts)1. "Cruelty is the Point" (book by Adam Serwer) So true. n/t
iluvtennis
(19,843 posts)2. Indeed. n/t
melm00se
(4,988 posts)3. here is the ruling
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
The ruling reads, in part, that
Twyford's request (and lower courts' upholding) was under the All Writs Act which was passed in 1911.
Twyford was tried and convicted of aggravated murder, kidnapping, robbery, and other
charges in the murder, mutilation and disposal of Richard Franks. Twyford confessed to the crime claiming that Franks had raped his girlfriends daughter and the killing was in revenge.
His conviction and sentencing was upheld upon appeal.
Most recently, Twyford "claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of a head injury Twyford sustained as a teenager during a suicide attempt" (which was a self-inflicted gunshot to the head) and that this injury left him unable to make rational and voluntary choices.
Twyford moved for an order compelling the State to transport [him] to The Ohio State University Medical Center for medical testing necessary for the investigation, presentation, and development of claims.
The District Court ordered that he be transported to the OSU Medical Center and the Appeals court upheld that ruling.
The State appealed on the grounds that the lower courts erred in 2 ways
The dissent by Justice Breyer joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan is really convoluted and not quickly and easily summarized here. The separate dissent by Justice Gorsuch is really quick and to the point:
The ruling reads, in part, that
A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not necessary or appropriate in aid of a federal courts adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief.
Twyford's request (and lower courts' upholding) was under the All Writs Act which was passed in 1911.
The All Writs Act authorizes federal courts to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
Twyford was tried and convicted of aggravated murder, kidnapping, robbery, and other
charges in the murder, mutilation and disposal of Richard Franks. Twyford confessed to the crime claiming that Franks had raped his girlfriends daughter and the killing was in revenge.
His conviction and sentencing was upheld upon appeal.
Most recently, Twyford "claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of a head injury Twyford sustained as a teenager during a suicide attempt" (which was a self-inflicted gunshot to the head) and that this injury left him unable to make rational and voluntary choices.
Twyford moved for an order compelling the State to transport [him] to The Ohio State University Medical Center for medical testing necessary for the investigation, presentation, and development of claims.
The District Court ordered that he be transported to the OSU Medical Center and the Appeals court upheld that ruling.
The State appealed on the grounds that the lower courts erred in 2 ways
First, the State contends that the All Writs Act does not authorize the issuance of transportation orders for medical testing at all. Second, the State argues that the transportation order was not necessary or appropriate in aid of the District Courts jurisdiction because Twyford failed to show that the evidence he hoped to find would be useful to his habeas case.
The dissent by Justice Breyer joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan is really convoluted and not quickly and easily summarized here. The separate dissent by Justice Gorsuch is really quick and to the point:
...it became clear a potential jurisdictional defect threatened to preclude the Court from reaching that question (whether a district court may order a State to transport a prisoner to a hospital for testing). The District Courts transportation ruling was an interlocutory order, not a final judgment...
...I would have dismissed this case as improvidently granted when the jurisdictional complication became apparent.
...I would have dismissed this case as improvidently granted when the jurisdictional complication became apparent.