Indiana v. Edwards (Filed: 2/11/08)
U.S. Supreme Court case to consider whether the Constitution requires states to allow a mentally ill defendant to act as his own attorney. The case involves the 2005 conviction of Ahmad Edwards, a thief who shot a security guard and a bystander at an Indianapolis department store. Edwards spent several years in state mental institutions until doctors determined that, with the aid of an attorney, he was competent to stand trial. However, the trial judge denied the defendant’s request to represent himself. On Appeal, the defendant won an Indiana Supreme Court ruling overturning his conviction, announcing that an earlier U. S. Supreme Court decision (Faretta v. California) required the trial judge to grant the defendant’s request. When the nation’s highest court agreed to hear Indiana’s appeal, CJLF joined the case. The Foundation argues that the Faretta decision did not prohibit states from setting limits on the right to self-representation to prevent mentally ill defendants from turning the trial into a mockery of justice.

Barnett v. Superior Court (Filed: 11/5/07)
The California Supreme Court is reviewing a California Court of Appeal granting convicted murderer Lee Barnett’s request for additional discovery, made under Penal Code section 1054.9. CJLF wrote an amicus brief addressing whether this section, enacted in 2002, is an amendment to the California Criminal Discovery Statute and whether it had been enacted in accordance with California’s constitution. If constitutionally enacted, the amendment would require prosecutors and investing law enforcement agencies to provide postconviction discovery to all convicted capital defendants filing habeas corpus petitions or motions to vacate their judgments or simply preparing to do so. The amendment did not require the convicted defendants to show cause for their discovery. CJLF argued the Statute had been unconstitutionally enacted, because the people had provided that the Criminal Discovery Statute could be amended only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, and therefore it was invalid. If the California Supreme Court accepts this argument, California district attorneys will no longer have to comply with time-consuming discovery requests when no action is pending in state or federal court. In addition, Barnett, a man convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in 1988, will no longer be able to request discovery for habeas petitions without first proving discovery is necessary to file his petition. CJLF has urged the court to strike this unconstitutionally enacted section. Once it is clear that a two-thirds vote is required, the legislature will need to reach a compromise and pass a fair statute that will not unnecessarily burden prosecutors or delay justice.

Boumediene v. Bush / Al Odah v. Bush (Filed: 10/08/07)
In companion cases before the United States Supreme Court CJLF filed an amicus curiae brief to demonstrate that the writ of habeas corpus was never meant to extend to prisoners of war designated as enemy combatants . CJLF filed its brief in response to the claims of two groups of enemy combatants, as well as 23 groups representing the interests of the combatants. The combatants, and their amicus, challenged their detention at a United States naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The groups claim the United States Constitution requires the government to allow them to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court. The groups also claim Congress does not have the authority to prohibit federal courts from hearing habeas claims, and that Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), created by an Act of Congress in 2006 to determine the status of the detainees, unconstitutionally denied the petitioners due process rights. CJLF’s brief examines the history of habeas corpus going back to the English common law to show that a writ of habeas was never meant to extend to prisoners of war. The brief adds that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts, and since enemy combatants are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as United States citizens, the Congress can create CSRTs without violating any due process rights of detained enemy combatants.

People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (Filed: 8/20/07)
California Supreme Court case to review lower court rulings that had disqualified a public prosecutor for opposing the disclosure of an 8 year-old sexual abuse victim’s confidential psychotherapy records. Both the mother of the victim and the victim’s therapist, objected to the disclosure of the records. However, the victim’s father, who is also the accused molester’s brother, consented to the release of the records. The prosecutor believed that the father’s consent should not be sufficient for disclosure because of the father’s conflict of interest in the case. The prosecutor then objected to the consent and filed a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem for the victim. The court denied the prosecutor’s motion, and then granted the defense’s motion to disqualify the prosecutor. The court found the prosecutor had incurred a conflict of interest by seeking to represent the victim’s interests. The appellate court later agreed with this ruling. CJLF joined the appeal to the California Supreme Court to argue the lower courts had misinterpreted the duties of the prosecutor. The prosecutor had a duty to enforce the law as a representative of a party to the case, and as such, the prosecutor had the right to participate in litigation affecting the proceeding. CJLF argued a prosecutor acts within the lawful range of his or her duties by acting as a zealous advocate for both the victim and the people of California. The lower courts had an obligation to respect the prosecutor’s duty, as well as the rights and interests of crime victims.