Buck v. Davis (15-8049)

argument 15-8049

Buck v. Davis

Supreme Court of the United States 55 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central claim about racial bias in Dwayne Buck’s death‑sentence case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next today in Case 15-8049, Buck v. Davis. Ms. Swarnes?

Catherine L. Swarns 0:07

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Dwayne Buck was condemned to death after his own court-appointed trial attorneys knowingly introduced an expert opinion that he was more likely to commit criminal acts of violence in the future because he is black. This evidence encouraged the sentencing jury to make its critical future dangerousness decision, which was a prerequisite for a death sentence and the central disputed issue at sentencing, based not on the individual facts and circumstances of Mr. Buck's crime or his life history, but instead based on a false and pernicious group-based stereotype.

Unknown 0:50

Didn't that expert say... I don't think he's going to be a future danger.

Catherine L. Swarns 0:57

On cross-examination, Dr. Quijano testified that he did believe that Mr. Buck was likely to commit future crimes of violence. He said that at the prosecutor's questioning that Mr. Buck was on the low end of the continuum, but that he could not say that Mr. Buck was not likely to commit criminal acts of violence. But Mr. Buck was unquestioned. But more likely than not that

Unknown 1:21

Catherine L. Swarns 1:22

wouldn't. Yes, he was on the low end of the spectrum in terms of the risk of violence. But here, this expert's evidence not only prejudiced Mr. Buck at sentencing, it also put the very integrity of the courts in jeopardy. For that reason, Texas acknowledged that its ordinary interest in finality does not apply. It publicly declared that it would waive its procedural defenses and allow new sentencing hearings in six capital cases, including Mr. Buck's, that involved the same expert's race as criminal violence opinion. Texas conceded error in five cases and then reversed course in Mr. Buck's case alone. As a result, Mr. Buck is the only Texas prisoner to face execution pursuant to a death sentence that Texas itself has acknowledged is compromised by racial bias that undermines confidence in the criminal justice

John G. Roberts 2:22

system. There's a tension in your briefing over what you're really arguing for. In the question presented, you focus on the Fifth Circuit standard for a COA and saying they're imposing an improper and unduly burdensome But most of the briefing, and as you've sort of begun today, is really focused on the underlying merits of the case. And you sort of have to make a choice, don't you? Because if we focus on the merits and rule in your favor, well, then we don't get to say too much about the threshold for certificate of appealability. Well, if we focus on the certificate of appealability, all we're saying on the merits is that there's a substantial showing. So what do you want us to do, on the merits or on the certificate of appealability?

Catherine L. Swarns 3:07

Well, in order to determine whether Mr. Buck was entitled to a certificate of appealability, this Court and the Fifth Circuit was required to determine whether or not the district court's decision with respect to both the constitutional question and the procedural question would be debatable among jurists.

John G. Roberts 3:24

Right, right. So is that what you want us to say, that because the merits are debatable — He should have gotten a certificate of appealability? Or do you want us to say, well, he should have won, and so he obviously should have gotten a certificate of appealability?

Catherine L. Swarns 3:37

We believe that the district court's decision is wrong, and therefore Mr. Buck was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

John G. Roberts 3:44

Okay, so on the merits, then, you just want us to say, oh, there's a reasonable jurist could disagree about whether or not he was unconstitutionally sentenced.

Catherine L. Swarns 3:54

or that just that reasonable jurist would conclude that the district court's decision that Mr. Buck was not prejudiced was incorrect, and therefore Mr. Buck was entitled to a certificate of appealability? But, for

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:05

example, I mean, last year in a case called Welch, the question came up on a certificate of appealability, and we just said, well, of course he should have gotten a certificate of appealability because he's right. And similarly, we did the same thing, oddly enough, in one of the cases at issue here.