Johnson v. Williams (11-465)

argument 11-465

Johnson v. Williams

Supreme Court of the United States 50 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.

How does the Court decide whether a state court has adjudicated a claim on the merits?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case eleven four sixty five, Johnson versus Williams. Ms. Brennan?

Erin E. Murphy 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. A fairly presented claim has been adjudicated on the merits when a state court issues a decision denying relief, unless it is made a plain statement to the contrary. And this is especially true where the state court has grappled with the substance of the alleged error. And this rule is correct for three reasons. First, state courts discharge their duties. They have sworn to uphold the Constitution. Therefore they must adjudicate claims that can that allege constitutional violations. So when a state court issues a decision denying relief, It must necessarily have considered and rejected all of the claims.

Elena Kagan 0:52

What happens when there's a challenge to the admission of evidence? on a state law ground. and a con on a confrontation clause ground. And all the state court does is grapple with the evidentiary rule. But it is self evident that the confrontation clause is based on a different theory. Are we s to assume in the light of that kind of decision that the Court actually grappled with the confrontation clause?

Erin E. Murphy 1:22

Your Honor, we would assume that there the state court, through its denial of relief Did adjudicate the presented confrontation clause claim. And that would be because for a number of reasons. First, the presumption of regularity. that judicial officers do do their job. And it can only be rebutted by clear evidence.

Elena Kagan 1:44

Am I To make that assumption. When before our line of cases in this area. state courts generally had held. That if um hearsay was admissible under their evidentiary rules that that was the end of their confrontation clause. challenge. Is a federal court supposed to continue with that presumption? in light of an undisputed state's statement. that their rules are consonant with the confrontation clause.

Erin E. Murphy 2:20

In that situation, if the state court rule was consonant with the confrontation clause, we would have certainly an adjudication of the confrontation clause. Let's

Elena Kagan 2:30

assume it's not after our we

Erin E. Murphy 2:32

render our decision. And if it were if it were different, we would still hold that in that situation, as this court and relying on Richter, in that situation it would be more of a summary denial on the confrontation analysis. Well

Unknown 2:48

we can continue uh and probably should talk about this broad theory this that you want us to adopt. Really in in this case, um the uh Court of Appeals in in this in the state system um cited Nestler and Nestler in turn cited uh at page one hundred four of the petition appendix a Supreme Court case, you don't even you you j you say citation, you don't even give but it's it's it's a this it's the Supreme Court case, United States versus Wood, written by uh uh Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. And uh it seems to me it's it's it's very clearly ties its state analysis to the uh a f federal constitution and a sixth amendment discussion in Wood. So it it seems to me that um you're uh you have a very strong argument that they did adjudicate the federal claim anyway.

Unknown 3:43

I I know you want us to maybe reach the bigger issue. Uh but and your brief almost downplays it, but it seems to me pretty clear that you have the argument Did you not? strongly make, although you you don't by any means abandon it. Uh w that that here the state law was tied to the federal standard and the federal standard was the basis for the entire jurisprudence.

Erin E. Murphy 4:05

Yes, Your Honor, we agree that in our situation it just so happened to be that the state standard also encompassed this court's Sixth Amendment jurisprudence because it it was citing um US V. Wood and it was citing um Smith B. Phillips among the the Sixth Amendment cases. In our case it just so happens that it does. But we've posit also that our case shows why This is illustrative as to why this court should adopt the broader rule that in situations where a state court has denied relief or a a claim has been fairly presented, that this court and all federal courts should assume that the state courts did their job by adjudicating.