Be rational in your arguments

Justice Souter Calls Lawyer’s Argument ‘Utterly Irrational’

Posted Dec 10, 2008, 06:07 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A lawyer for the state of Tennessee defending prosecutors’ decision to withhold evidence in a death penalty trial encountered skeptical and indignant questioning from several justices on Tuesday.

“There were flashes of incredulity and anger from justices” during the oral arguments, the New York Times reports. At issue is when federal courts may reconsider state court rulings in death penalty cases, according to the story. But oral arguments focused on prosecutors’ failure to turn over the evidence.

The defendant, Gary Cone, had admitted murdering a Memphis couple, but his lawyer had claimed he committed the crime in an amphetamine psychosis, the Times says. Prosecutors called the defense “baloney” while withholding police reports and witness statements from the defense saying Cone was a heavy drug user.

The U.S. Supreme Court has twice upheld the death sentence for Cone, but arguments Tuesday raised the possibility that this time the court will overturn it, the Washington Post reports.

Jennifer Smith, a lawyer in the state attorney general's office, faced tough questions from Justice Stephen G. Breyer about why the evidence was withheld, the Post says.

Click here to continue reading.

http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/justice_souter_calls_lawyers_argument_utterly_irrational