Martinez v. Ryan (10-1001)

argument 10-1001

Martinez v. Ryan

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 is the central legal issue in Martinez v. Ryan regarding ineffective assistance of counsel?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear case next in case ten, one thousand and one, Martinez

David W. Bartels 0:04

versus Ryan. Mr. Bartles. Mr Chief Justice and uh may it please the court. Uh in Arizona almost all state and federal claims for relief from a criminal conviction are raisable in the Arizona Court of Appeals uh on direct appeal. Um however, uh a claim that trial counsel was ineffective Must be presented first to a trial court in what Arizona labels a post-conviction relief proceeding. Petitioner agrees entirely with Arizona's requirement. That ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims going to a trial court, and he does not object to the label post-conviction relief as such. The issue in the case has to do with Arizona's insistence that petitioner had no right to counsel with respect to the Post conviction.

David W. Bartels 1:18

first tier review, portion of first tier review. Even though we did have a right to counsel in the appeal portion of direct review. And our position is that that distinction between what are two portions of the first opportunity for review of a Broken up sensibly, but by the dictate of the state uh into two parts, that that distinction cannot stand, especially in a case in which the first post conviction proceeding Um started and ended. before anything of substance.

Unknown 2:12

then wouldn't the same go for twenty two fifty five proceedings? I mean this court has said It makes sense to have the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel looked at by a trial judge First, not an appellate judge. And yet in twenty two fifty five proceedings, if you're urging ineffective assistance of counsel, you don't get an automatic um right counsel. In twenty two, fifty five. Proceedings council will be appointed. only if the court determines that the interests of justice so require. So Is what the proposition you're urging would have ram ramifications in the federal system as well, wouldn't it?

David W. Bartels 3:03

That's correct, Your Honor. And

Unknown 3:04

so twenty two fifty five would no longer be the interests of justice so required. The court must appoint counsel for you. That's your view.

David W. Bartels 3:17

In a situation th the federal system is a little more complicated than Arizona, although not much because of Massaro. Um because of the what Our our position would be in the federal system if uh if a federal defendant wished to file a twenty two fifty-five, that he would be entitled to appointed counsel, but as far as this case is concerned, only with respect to uh any claim of ineffective assistance of a trial.

Samuel A. Alito 3:49

You want us to hold that There is a right to counsel whenever a petitioner asserts a claim that could not have been asserted at an earlier point in the proceedings.

David W. Bartels 4:04

Yes, Your Honor. With with the cabinet, if the state allows that kind of proceeding, uh one of the things that I have a hard time keeping track of in in this context is Unlike the the right to counsel a trial, the sixth amendment right, where I think they have to give them a trial. Uh, we're dealing in a context where this court made clear well over a hundred years ago that there doesn't have to be Any review at all?

Samuel A. Alito 4:39

It extends well beyond claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, wouldn't it? If if many years after someone is convicted uh an allegation is made that the prosecution failed to turn over exculpatory evidence and that the uh the information supporting the claim has just recently come to light and could not have been previously discovered, there would be a right to counsel there.

David W. Bartels 5:05

If the state case if the state provided that preceding that, um and the state would not have to. The state could have statutes of limitation or rules against successive petitions that could be extremely strict if they're concerned about that.

Unknown 5:21

Why would it be successive if it could it could not have been raised earlier?

David W. Bartels 5:27

Your Honors, I as I understand the situation we've got newly discovered evidence of perhaps a Brady violation. Um in that situation, if The state provides a proceeding for review of that, and it is the first opportunity for review. I think the implication of Douglas and Halbert is there would be a right to count.