In my previous posting on judicial activism and the death penalty, I contended that Chief Justice John Roberts' minority opinion in House vs. Bell represented judicial activism because the nation's top jurist was narrowly reading legal precedent to uphold a death penalty case despite a plurality of public opinion against capital punishment.
Some conservative readers have taken me to task for that assertion noting that the narrow reading is entirely consistent with jurist's duty.
But that assertion is, in many ways, more troubling than my initial objections of judicial activism. It is the difference between legalism and justice.
The case revolved around the rape and murder of a Knoxville, Tennessee woman named Carolyn Muncey. House was convicted of the crime in part due to blood stains found on his pants. Those bloodstains were later discovered to have been placed on the pants during an accident in a forensic laboratory. DNA evidence later indicated that House had not, in fact, sexually assaulted the victim.
Eliminating House as a rapist certainly cast some doubt upon his role as a murder suspect. The two crimes were linked by time and space, and, if House had not raped Mrs. Muncey he would have had no particular motive to kill her.
Presenting evidence we describe in greater detail below, House attacked the semen and blood evidence used at his trial and presented other evidence, including a putative confession, suggesting that Mr. Muncey, not House, committed the murder. The District Court nevertheless denied relief, holding that House had neither demonstrated actual innocence of the murder under Schlup nor established that he was ineligible for the death penalty under Sawyer. (Supreme Court Majority Opinion, House vs. Bell)
Interestingly, this bit of judicial wisdom was arrived at in Tennessee. The Volunteer State does not have a long history of valuing science. It was Dayton, Tennessee, after all, that played host to the Scopes Monkey Trial case of the 1920's.
So basically the conservative viewpoint was to ignore science and any exculpatory evidence and reject House's claim for reasons of procedure. In other words, the spirit of the law was ignored in order to preserve the letter of the law.
Such tactics are nothing new. During Jesus' earthly ministry, he came across numerous such individuals. They were called Pharisees.
Then He answered them, saying, "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" And they could not answer Him regarding these things. – Luke 14:5-6
Our Savior's intent is clear: the purpose of the law should be to aid and abet life, not look for ways to extinguish it. By their actions the jurists in this case have aligned themselves in the same camp as the historical Pharisees.
When a federal court is reviewing a state court's determination and attempting to consider what a juror would do, Boggs wrote, ''we are inevitably making hypothetical judgments. That statement is as true of the majority and special dissenting opinions as it is of mine. But we must do that in order to be faithful to Schlup. Otherwise we are simply doing what some observers may think is regularly done in such cases — substituting our own judgment of what the evidence shows for the opinion of the jury, and all jurors.'' - Tennessee Supreme Court
In contrast to this ruling (and Chief Justice John Roberts' dissenting opinion) the majority of the US Supreme Court got it right. Here is what they said:
The Supreme Court found this evidence "troubling" but did not decide that it was conclusive. "If considered in isolation, a reasonable jury might well disregard" such testimony, the Court stated. "In combination, however, with the challenges to the blood evidence and the lack of motive with respect to House, the evidence pointing to Mr. Muncey likely would reinforce other doubts as to House's guilt."
When judges ignore science and ignore common sense in order to keep the death penalty in play that is judicial activism. House, who is suffering from multiple sclerosis, is expected to die before his case makes its way back through the Tennessee legal system. It is obvious from House's history that he is no choir boy, but he is still an innocent man who will die in a state institution.
His death will not serve justice; it will only serve the egos of allegedly pro-life conservatives in judicial robes. They are nothing more than secular Pharisees.