United States v. Sanchez-Gomez (17-312)

argument 17-312

United States v. Sanchez-Gomez

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Why does the Ninth Circuit lack statutory authority to review the shackling policy?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case seventeen three twelve, United States versus Sanchez Gomez.

Antonin Scalia 0:06

Mr.

John G. Roberts 0:06

Keaton?

Antonin Scalia 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. An appellate court must have statutory as well as constitutional authority for its decisions, and here the Ninth Circuit had neither. Appellate review was not authorized under Section twelve ninety one, which applies only to district court decisions that are final, nor under the All Writs Act. And because the cr respondents' criminal cases had ended long before the Court of Appeals ruled, their due process claims were accordingly moot.

Unknown 0:39

On your first point, you didn't mention the collateral order doctrine. What about that? I mean, if that's an exception to the uh 1291 final judgment rule?

Antonin Scalia 0:53

That's correct. It is a construction that this Court has given to the final judgment rule. We don't think that that applies here, most notably because respondents Due process claims could be reviewed following final judgment, which is one of the preconditions for application of the collateral order doctrine. in deck versus Missouri.

Unknown 1:15

that the trial would somehow have been infected. Uh It seems to me there may well be a a legal a violation in shackling uh People, particularly people with disabilities and so forth. And that doesn't have anything to do with the trial. They're not shackled during the trial. So I uh it it seems to me it's a

Antonin Scalia 1:32

different issue. Justice Kennedy, I don't think it necessarily has to affect the trial. Recall here, for instance, that the Ninth Circuit's decision in this case created a split with the Second and Eleventh Circuits. And in both of those cases, there were challenges to the use of physical restraints that came from uh came after the fact. But but what if uh y the

Unknown 1:53

the the person is convicted And has an app let's say that he does or she does have an appeal on on some different points. And they add and incidentally and I was shackled during the the pretrial. Well what what difference does that make to the outcome?

Antonin Scalia 2:08

I don't get it. Well it wouldn't necessarily affect the outcome of the trial, but for instance, they could have a claim that it affected some part of the pretrial process. They had a suppression motion that was affected because they couldn't contribute to their own defense, they couldn't communicate with counsel.

John G. Roberts 2:23

How did that I saw that argument? How can How do the shackles affect

Antonin Scalia 2:26

their ability to communicate with

John G. Roberts 2:28

counsel?

Antonin Scalia 2:29

Well, I would refer you to the allegations that respondents have made throughout this litigation. So they've made allegations, for instance, that there were criminal defendants who were unable to raise their hands and get the attention of their counsel.

Stephen G. Breyer 2:41

I suppose they

Antonin Scalia 2:42

didn't.

Stephen G. Breyer 2:44

I mean that's the question you're being asked. I mean suppose that shackling a person, arms and legs, be f when he goes before the magistrate does not affect the outcome of his trial where he wasn't shackled. All right. Ah that's certainly possible. The first thing you ask, or would be in that case, the appeals court says, what's the prejudice? Fine. How does he raise the issue?

Antonin Scalia 3:10

The question under the collateral order doctrine is not whether a particular litigant or even most litigants who want to raise that type of claim should uh are able to get relief after final judgment because they can show prejudice. The question is whether the type of claim, by its very nature, is one for which a post conviction. I asked you how does he raise the issue? I think it would be very difficult in an instance in which there was no allegation that it had any effect on the way that the proceedings unfold.

Stephen G. Breyer 3:39

So you are saying if in fact it it wouldn't I am being very hypothetical. Absolutely hypothetical. I don't believe it would ever happen. But if by some chance they have a policy in a court, a federal court of the United States, that people will come in bound and gagged. in body armor hung upside down. Okay, you're saying even if that's so, that person in this country has no way of challenging that order. Is that your point? And if that is not your point, what does he have by way of procedure to challenge the order?