Foster v. Chatman (14-8349)

argument 14-8349

Foster v. Chatman

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 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 procedural question did the Court need to resolve about which state court should receive certiorari?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 14-8349, Foster v. Chapman.

Steven Bright 0:06

Mr. Bright. Mr. Chief Justice, it may have pleased the Court, the prosecutors in this case came to court on the morning of jury selection determined to strike all the black prospective jurors.

John G. Roberts 0:19

Mr. Bright, maybe you could address first the question we raised on Friday with respect to which court certiorari should be directed to.

Steven Bright 0:29

Yes, Your Honor, we filed this petition originally, certiorari, to the Supreme Court of Georgia. And, of course, this court in Sears v. Upton had issued certiorari, this is in 2010, to the Supreme Court of Georgia in a similar situation. It appears to us, from looking at this over the weekend, that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Durham County, which the court decided in 1986, The court said that unless there was positive assurance that the decision was not a ruling on the merits, then the writ went to the state Supreme Court. And the Georgia court, while it has rules and statutes and its own opinions that are not totally in harmony with one another, the rule nonetheless is that a certificate of probable cause, which is what was denied in this case, is to be granted to

Steven Bright 1:27

if there is arguable merit to the case.

John G. Roberts 1:30

Do you think that affects the scope of our review? In other words, are we addressing just whether there's arguable merit to the claim, or are we addressing the claim on its own merits?

Steven Bright 1:40

I think what this Court has done in all these cases is apply Yates v. Noonanmaker to look through to the last reasoned decision, and that would be the decision of the habeas corpus court. In Georgia, typically the habeas court rules, an application is made for a certificate of probable cause to the Georgia Supreme Court and that is often denied summarily. It is denied summarily, as it was in this case. JUSTICE BREYER-

Unknown 2:05

I really don't understand that. You say we would be reversing the Georgia Supreme Court, not the habeas court, right? And all that the Georgia Supreme Court held is that there was no arguable basis. for its accepting review. So if we reverse that decision, we tell the Georgia Supreme Court, you're wrong. There is an arguable basis for your accepting review. So we ought to remand to that court requiring them to accept review, it would seem to me. How can we reverse them on an issue they never considered?

Steven Bright 2:49

Well, that's what happened in R.J. Reynolds. I mean, there you had an almost identical situation where you had an intermediate appellate court that had ruled, and then you had the North Carolina Supreme Court denied review. And the question was, do you issue the writ to the intermediate appellate court or to the North Carolina Supreme Court? And this court decided, and Justice Blackmun writing for the court said, we want to give practitioners, we want to end the confusion about this. And so it goes to the state Supreme Court. There's no difference. In our situation here and the situation that R.J. Reynolds

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:21

was — But you're saying in that case or in other cases, and if so, which other cases, that in that situation we nonetheless addressed the reasoning of the intermediate court? Is that what you're saying? You

Steven Bright 3:33

did in Sears v. Upton case out of Georgia, 561 U.S. 945 in 2010. That was certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia, but it came up in exactly the same posture of our case. Is

Unknown 3:47

there an argument that the petition for certiorari could go to the trial court? I mean, our statute says that it goes to the highest court in which review could have been had, I think, is the statutory right, which sounds like the Georgia Supreme Court. On the other hand, as Justice Scalia said, they haven't really directed their attention to the issues before us. It's not sure to me that it's an option to do that. to go to the Georgia trial court? Or is that incorrect?

Steven Bright 4:21

Well, what this court has said, both in the R.J. Reynolds case and then that was followed in Grady v. North Carolina last year, 2015 case this year, in which once again there was an intermediate court decision denied by the North Carolina Supreme Court.