Walker v. Martin (09-996)

argument 09-996

Walker v. Martin

Supreme Court of the United States 55 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.

What is the central issue the Court is reviewing in Walker v. Martin?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument next this morning in case zero nine nine nine six, Walker versus Martin. Mr Marshall.

Unknown 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Charles Martin never adequately explained. Why he waited more than five years present additional claims to the California Supreme Court. As such, it was no surprise. that these claims were rejected as untimely. California employs a habeas corpus timeliness rule. that merely requires reasonable diligence and disclosure. The rule is adequate under this court's long standing precedence And the Ninth Circuit's decision, to the contrary, should be reversed. Well what about the charge that Uh yeah, we can agree with you in that in general five years it seems like uh long time. But We have a brief from the habeas corpus resource center that says that in the five to six year delay category

Unknown 1:01

Sixty two percent are dismissed on the merits. And that um You can't tell. Sometimes they do it on merit, sometimes they do it uh as time barred and is no rationale to when they do one or the other. Three brief responses, Your Honor. First is that to measure summary denials Um Can't tell from a summary denial ruling. what the court was thinking about the time of delay. The second point is that Delay in California is only half the equation. In California there is the substantial delay and then there's also the justification portion. So persons who operate under substantial delay still have an opportunity to justify that delay and gain the desired review. Would they have to would they have to justify the delay?

Unknown 1:52

First I thought there was something about uh Well, if the time question Is Uh more difficult and the merits are easy, there's no merit, so we just decide there's a lot of the other.

Unknown 2:15

A court that's denying a case on the merits isn't necessarily saying The matter was timely. And courts should be permitted to reach whatever is the most judicially efficient method of resolving such a question without it being held against them.

Elena Kagan 2:31

So basically you're taking the position or you're conceding that the California courts are not consistent in their application of the timeliness rule? No Your briefs doesn't even try to defend that position. Are you conceding that there is inconsistent application of the rule?

Unknown 2:51

No, Your Honor. The point that we are making is that When you look at a rule, whether you apply it or not, or whether you impose it or not, doesn't mean you're not applying the rule. For example, when trial courts uh review matters under the Fourth Amendment. A decision not to exclude the evidence doesn't mean they didn't apply the Fourth Amendment. In this case, if the trial court or if the reviewing court looks at the length of delay, And then they may look at the justification. To determine that the delay was justified.

Elena Kagan 3:22

Well uh I might be speaking for her, but I thought that the habeas corpus resource centre brief showed that the Court, the California Court, did reach Some cases. where an explanation had not been proffered. And So it can't be just a simple rule that if you don't proffer an explanation you won't get heard. So what's the next step in that? W why do they reach some and not others?

Unknown 3:55

The California Supreme Court, if a case is patently meritless, And perhaps the procedural question of timing this is more complex.

Elena Kagan 4:04

How could it be complex when there is no justification offered?

Unknown 4:07

The question of how long it was.

Elena Kagan 4:10

Well they pointed to a certain number of cases that were five years or above in delay. where no justification was offered and in some They reach the merits, and in others they apply the procedural bar. So how is that consistent?

Unknown 4:29

Well the State Court has discretion to determine on the on procedural grounds or on the merits. Some federal rule that says you have to apply a procedural ground before you decide the merits? There is not. So it is up to California which of the two it wants to use. That is correct. And if a California if it just says denied, then the presumption is it's denied on the merits, is that it? That's correct. A lack of a prima facie case. And and if so if it's going to be denied on time bar grounds, there has to be something