LOTS OF JULY 15 APPELLATE ACTION
[Posted July 16, 2008] Yesterday, while I was flying back across the country, the appellate courts that sit in the Commonwealth conducted business as usual, paying no heed whatsoever to my travel plans. The Court of Appeals of
Court of Appeals of
A number of criminal statutes contain limited exceptions. Those exceptions often provide fertile ground for appellate analysis, when courts attempt to determine whether the exception constitutes an affirmative defense (requiring the defendant to adduce evidence to bring himself within the exception), or an element of the offense itself (requiring the prosecution to prove that the defendant didnt fall within the exception). We get some brand-new guidance on this doctrine in Tart v. Commonwealth , involving a conviction of pandering.
If youre up on your Chaucer and your Shakespeare, you may recall the character Pandarus from the great poets works Troilus and Cressida (Im using Shakeys more familiar spelling of Cressida). Pandarus knew that the Trojan prince Troilus loved Cressida from afar, so he arranged liaisons between the two. From this literary reference we get the word pander, meaning a man who arranges illicit trysts for others. There is a more modern term for this person, and for the service he provides; a four letter word that starts with P and ends with I-M-P.
From all this, a jury would probably be fairly convinced that Tart was guilty of the offense charged. But the statute contains one of those exceptions, so we have at least one speed bump on the expressway to conviction: Any person who shall knowingly receive any money or other valuable thing form the earnings of any male or female engaged in prostitution, except for a consideration deemed good and valuable in law, shall be guilty of pandering, . . ..
The trial court held that the exception in that sentence created an affirmative defense, so it was up to Tart to introduce evidence to bring himself within the exception. Tart had offered an elements-of-the-offense instruction that required the Commonwealth to prove that he did not provide any consideration, deemed good and valuable in law, but the trial court rejected that.
The Court of Appeals affirms the ruling, holding that this is, indeed, an affirmative defense. And it rules that Tarts actions in paying for things were not consideration deemed good and valuable in law, so he didnt meet the burden of proving his entitlement to the instruction. What about paying for food and the motel rooms, you ask? Well, since when is facilitating juvenile prostitution good and valuable in law?
The next issue to get appellate scrutiny is the voluntariness of statements to police made under implicit threat of prosecution of a family member. The case is Hill v. Commonwealth , where Hill was convicted, based largely on his own confession, of possession of cocaine with in tent to distribute.
Back at the police station, the officer approached Hill, re-Mirandized him, and told him that his sister might be in hot water unless he talked to them about the car the sister was driving. The officer helpfully told Hill that he wasnt convinced that the second batch of cocaine belonged to the sister, but unless Hill took the rap for it, then the sister might get prosecuted. Fearful for his sister, Hill confessed that all of the cocaine, in both cars, was his.
This appeal turns on Hills motion to suppress the confession; he contended that his confession was involuntary because it was obtained by the officers threat to prosecute the sister. The trial court ruled that there was nothing involuntary about it. It made several specific factual findings to support that ruling. The Court of Appeals affirms, in part because police unquestionably had probable cause to arrest the sister. That distinguishes the case, in the courts collective mind, from one in which police threaten to prosecute a wholly innocent family member in order to coerce a confession.
The biggest news item of the day from the appellate sector is no doubt the Fourths highly fractured ruling in al-Marri v. Pucciarelli , involving the claim by a man that he is being held indefinitely and without charges as an enemy combatant. With nine judges considering the case (Judge Shedd did not participate, and Judge Agee arrived after the case was argued), seven different opinions emerge from the battle. It is truly difficult to tell the opinions without a scorecard.
As you can imagine with a case of this nature, there is a great deal of high prose on both sides of just about every question. For the philosophically minded, the ruling is (really, I should say the rulings are) expansive, thought-provoking, and only occasionally highly technical. Its 216 pages of fun, for those with either a great deal of intellectual curiosity or a passion for detail.
For everyone else, theres the holding. In a short (four paragraphs) per curiam order, the court summarizes the holdings and their complex developments: By separate 5-4 votes, al-Marri wins one and loses one, as the court finds that the President has the power to detain him, but that he has to be given a greater opportunity to challenge the detention. This latter ruling follows last months decision in Boumedienne v. Bush, in which the US Supreme Court held that enemy combatants held in US-controlled territory must be afforded the right of habeas corpus or some meaningful equivalent.
The key essay in this forest of opinions is probably Judge Traxlers. He writes that al-Marri should be afforded an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he is, in truth, an enemy combatant. But if he is such a combatant, then Judge Traxler, commanding a majority on this point, perceives that he can indeed be held by the government pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
This last ruling sets off a storm of protest by one of the 5-4 minorities. Judge Motz, writing on behalf of three colleagues, notes that this question underlies one of the most basic liberties afforded those here the right to be free from indefinite detention without trial. She rejects the idea that Congress silently authorized a detention power that so vastly exceeds all traditional bounds.
As with the Boumedienne ruling, I am loath to stay completely out of this fight, simply because the issue is so important. I believe that the position outlined by Judge Motz is by far the preferable one. Taking the majoritys position at face value, it is wholly plausible that the current Administration could determine that there is a rabble-rousing appellate lawyer in Tidewater
Also as with Boumedienne, this case fundamentally implicates what it is to be an American; what separates us from the lesser nations of the world. I am certainly aware that, as Justice Arthur Goldberg memorably wrote, the Constitution “is not a suicide pact.” The government must take certain steps in order to ensure that we, as a nation, are not destroyed. But the government surely cannot be permitted to adopt an approach that instead destroys the Constitution.
This case is overwhelmingly likely to wind up in Washington in short order, where instead of Judge Traxler, Justice Kennedy, the swing vote in the Supreme Courts current 5-4 split, will get to decide what kind of nation we will have.