We had a case which speaks for volumes on the hypocritcal depravity of the U.S. justice system. The case involved some interesting legal issues which we will have occasion to write about elsewhere. For present purposes it suffices to say that, at trial, defendant was charged with impermissibly carrying a gun and with making threats while he sat under arrest in a police vehicle. Both charges were based on hearsay evidence; viz: “I was told he had a gun” and “I heard him say ‘he was gonna get them.” Defendant was acquitted of the threat charge but convicted of possessing a gun.
On appeal, defendant argued that his conviction of gun possession was based on impermissible hearsay which deprived him of his constitutional right to “confront” his accusers — in this case, whoever it was who had told the trial witness that he had a gun.
The Attorney General filed an answer brief arguing at length that the threat statements were properly admitted. Defendant filed a reply brief stating that he had not appealed his acquittal and that the issues raised concerned the first hearsay statement.
The appellate court affirmed the judgement ruling that the threat statements had been properly admitted and that there was “sufficient evidence” of defendant’s gun possession.
Defendant filed a petition for rehearing requesting the appellate court to please address the issue he had appealed. With an unmistakably clear “fuck you,” The petition was denied.
A petition for review by the state high court was also denied.
Comment
What the case shows is not that appeal courts scratch all corners of the chicken coop to come up with some flimsy grist with which to keep people locked up at all costs.
What the case illustrates is that the courts do not even bother reading defendant’s appellate contentions. Their justices clerks get the briefs, read the Attorney General’s brief and then write a draft affirming the decision based on the States’ pleadings.
We have often suspected as much, but never was the muck in the pond so clear.
