Skinner v. Switzer (09-9000)

argument 09-9000

Skinner v. Switzer

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 2m 7 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 question presented in Skinner v. Switzer?

John G. Roberts 0:02

We'll hear argument first this morning in case zero nine nine thousand, Skinner versus Switzer. Mr Owen.

John C. Owen 0:10

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court. The issue before the Court today, and the only question litigated to decision in the courts below is whether a prisoner's claim that seeks only access to evidence for DNA testing may be brought in federal court under the Civil Rights Act. The Fifth Circuit summarily answered that question no, adhering to its long standing view that any federal claim that might conceivably set the stage for a subsequent collateral attack, however removed in time, must itself be brought via habeas. That rule so clearly cannot be squared with the decisions of this court, especially since Wilkerson versus Dotson, that the court should reverse and remand. I'd like to begin by describing the contours of the HEC rule.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 0:53

May I ask you uh about uh Wilkerson was a parole parole eligibility. So it didn't touch the conviction or the sentence. Where this one does. So cases are distinguishable. On that basis.

John C. Owen 1:10

Justice Ginsburg, the reason that we argue our case does not touch the conviction is that the relief that we are seeking, um have access to the evidence for testing, if we won, if we win in district court and we get that access, it does not necessarily imply, which is the language this court used in Heck and repeated in Dotson, that the conviction is lawfully invalid.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:32

I understand that argument, but there is the distinction of the type of case where the the one conviction and sentence were never going to be questioned. Only parole eligibility we're here. The the discovery that you you seek in nineteen eighty three is not a destination. The destination is the further litigation that may or may not arise.

John C. Owen 2:01

That's true, Your Honor. We we don't see that as a distinction that uh compels the conclusion that Dotson isn't the model to follow, because in in our view, what Dotson said Uh again the the prisoners as as Justice Ginsberg says were before the court uh seeking a d a declaration about the parole procedures that Ohio planned to use in their cases. Uh those parole procedures had been adopted after those prisoners were sent to prison and they complained that that was an ex post facto violation. And Ohio argued, both in the Sixth Circuit and in this court. That the fact that these prisoners expected at some point to come back to court armed with a judgment in their favor and seek a reduction in their sentences was enough to conclude that the case should be within the core of habeas.

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:44

It does seem odd though, and I I don't want to jump into your argument too much because you've got to plan out which one to tell us. Does seem odd that if your suit for DNA testing is not attack on an attack on the sentence that you ask for a stay. I mean, if it's not an attack on the sentence, why shouldn't that factor into our uh decision not to grant stay or to grant stay. Uh it's it's it's it's it's an irony in your position.

John C. Owen 3:11

Uh I think it's an I I I I accept the Court's point that that that that seems unusual. Um but I think that the reason that the Court's cases, uh at least as to the relief that we are seeking, and not the stay that the Court entered in order to hear this case and decide the question, uh that the relief we are seeking does not necessarily imply the legal invalidity of the requirements. Well we don't

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:31

grant a stay in order to decide a question. We grant a stay because there's a likelihood of success on the merits. And that goes to the sentence. And now you're telling us that your attack doesn't go in the sentence. I don't see why we don't just lift the stay. Under your own view of case.

John C. Owen 3:45

No, Your Honor, I I think I if I if I was understood to say that then I let me clarify. Um I think that Our Success uh when the when the court applies the stay standard, it asks the question, what is the likelihood of success on the merits? Success on the merits for purposes of our lawsuit means getting access to the evidence. That's that's what it means.

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:08

Is that all it means we shouldn't have granted a stay?