Left: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks during a panel discussion at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association, Friday, Feb. 23, 2024, in Washington (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein). Right: Eric Walber, pictured in a local news report about Michael Wearry's plea deal (WAFB).
Justice Sonia Sotomayor registered a sharp dissent Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up the case of a man sentenced to life in the 1998 slaying of a teenage pizza delivery driver in Louisiana, accusing her colleagues of refusing to "enforce its own precedents."
Joined only by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor argued that it made little sense for the Supreme Court to effectively free James Skinner's co-defendant from death row with a decision a decade earlier but to leave Skinner in prison for the rest of his days without parole, when both men were incarcerated for the murder of 16-year-old Eric Walber based on "similar sets of evidence, which centered on the same two eyewitness accounts."
"Equal justice under law, the phrase engraved on the front of this Court's building, requires that two codefendants, convicted of the same crime, who raised essentially the same constitutional claims, receive the same answer from the courts," Sotomayor said. "Here, because the Louisiana courts refused to apply this Court's Brady precedents, including a decision by this Court involving the very same evidence, Skinner risks spending the rest of his life in prison while [Michael] Wearry walks free," Sotomayor said. "Because the Court refuses to enforce its own precedents, I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari."
Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must hand over "Brady material," evidence that is exculpatory or tends to be favorable to the defense. The "withholding of evidence that is material to the determination of either guilt or punishment of a criminal defendant violates the defendant's constitutional right to due process," the Supreme Court held in 1963.
The evidence of Brady violations in the case of Michael Wearry was egregious to the point that the Supreme Court ruled his conviction and death sentence had to be set aside in 2016, and a new trial was "required." Of particular concern was what the state hid from the defense about its star witness, a "jailhouse snitch" named Sam Scott who two years after the slaying claimed a lesser level of responsibility in Walber's death while pointing to Wearry, Skinner, and three others.
That story not only changed, but was also wrong about basic facts. For instance, the witness claimed Walber was shot to death — but the evidence showed that on that April 1998 day, the Albany High School football player was filling in for someone who didn't show up for work at Pizza Express and was beaten and run over by his own car, local CBS affiliate WAFB reported. Skinner was allegedly behind the wheel.
Further explaining why the Supreme Court found Scott's account "dubious," one of his versions of the crime said Randy Hutchinson — who had "undergone knee surgery to repair a ruptured patellar tendon" nine days earlier — ran after the pizza delivery driver.
Worse yet, Scott had made statements behind bars that he wanted to "'make sure [Wearry] gets the needle cause he jacked over me,'" an inmate reported. Neither the defense nor the jury were aware of this evidence.
"Beyond doubt, the newly revealed evidence suffices to undermine confidence in Wearry's conviction," the Supreme Court, except for Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, concluded at the time. "The State's trial evidence resembles a house of cards, built on the jury crediting Scott's account rather than Wearry's alibi."
But there wouldn't be another trial, because Louisiana prosecutors, realizing the prospect of persuading a jury to convict against this backdrop was slim, reached a deal with Wearry, one which would enable him to walk free on time served in 2023.
As part of that deal, Wearry pleaded guilty to manslaughter, something he had "mixed feelings about," according to his Innocence Project attorney.
"He was not present at the crime and he had nothing to do with it. But, would you roll the dice in front of an all-white jury where the community still remembers the crime?" Jim Mayer asked.
On Monday, Sotomayor wanted to know why Wearry is free but Skinner isn't entitled to a new trial, when he was "subject to the same constitutional violations that Wearry was (and more)," and was sentenced to life without parole on the strength of an 11-1 jury verdict after his first trial ended with a hung jury.
"[H]e is entitled to the same relief that Wearry received. The Louisiana courts denied him that relief. Rather than leaving that injustice in place, the Court should have granted certiorari to uphold its obligations to ensure the supremacy of its own decisions and to treat like defendants alike," the justice said, noting that Skinner discovered even more evidence from police records — beyond the known Brady violations — after hiring an attorney.
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments