United States Supreme Court Decisions: 2023 – 2024 Term

Grants of Review with Summary Dispositions

Ovante v. Arizona, No. 22 – 7229

On October 2, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an order grant­i­ng cer­tio­rari to Manuel Ovante Jr., vacat­ing the judg­ment, and remand­ing the case for fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion in light of its rul­ing in Cruz v. Arizona.

The peti­tion­ers raised the same claim as in Cruz (see DPIC’s sum­ma­ry), that when their pros­e­cu­tors raised the issue of their future dan­ger­ous­ness dur­ing sen­tenc­ing hear­ings, they had a due process right to inform jurors that they would not be parole eli­gi­ble if they were sen­tenced to life, and that the state court had mis­ap­plied both Simmons v. South Carolina and Lynch v. Arizona in refus­ing to allow them to do so.

Notable Denials of Review

Johnson v. Alabama, No. 22 – 7337

On October 2, 2023, the Court denied cer­tio­rari to Toforest Johnson, who has long main­tained his inno­cence. Mr. Johnson was con­vict­ed of the 1995 shoot­ing of Deputy Sheriff William Hardy, despite over ten eye­wit­ness­es plac­ing Mr. Johnson across town at a night­club at the time of the crime. The State’s case large­ly rest­ed on the tes­ti­mo­ny of an ​“ear­wit­ness”: Violet Ellison approached police after the State put out a $5,000 reward offer for infor­ma­tion on the case, and tes­ti­fied at tri­al that she over­heard a three-way jail phone call in which a man referred to him­self as ​“Toforest” and con­fessed to the crime. The State denied that Ms. Ellison received a reward for her tes­ti­mo­ny for almost two decades, until a retired employ­ee from the District Attorney’s office told Mr. Johnson’s defense team about a set of ​“con­fi­den­tial reward files” in 2018. The State then dis­closed a file con­tain­ing a $5,000 check made out to Ms. Ellison in 2001, claim­ing it had been ​“mis­filed.” Despite these facts, the low­er courts declined to find a Brady vio­la­tion, lead­ing Mr. Johnson to ask the Supreme Court direct­ly for Brady relief. Numerous Alabama legal offi­cials sup­port a new tri­al, includ­ing the cur­rent District Attorney, the orig­i­nal tri­al pros­e­cu­tor, a for­mer Chief Justice, and a for­mer Attorney General. Three of the orig­i­nal jurors also believe they con­vict­ed the wrong man. ​“The Supreme Court only reviews a small frac­tion of the cas­es that come to it,” said Ty Alper, an attor­ney for Mr. Johnson. ​“While we wish they had cho­sen to take a clos­er look at Mr. Johnson’s case, we are look­ing for­ward to return­ing to the appeal we have pend­ing in Jefferson County, where the District Attorney has already called for a new trial.” 

Roberson v. Texas, No. 22 – 7546

The Court denied cer­tio­rari to Robert Roberson on October 2, 2023, in a high-pro­file inno­cence case. Mr. Roberson was con­vict­ed of killing his daugh­ter, Nikki, based on the now-dis­cred­it­ed sci­en­tif­ic the­o­ry of ​“Shaken Baby Syndrome” (SBS). The the­o­ry held that a cer­tain con­stel­la­tion of symp­toms, includ­ing brain swelling and bleed­ing, could only occur through mali­cious shak­ing — in oth­er words, any child who died of these symp­toms had been mur­dered. Evidence now shows that numer­ous oth­er med­ical con­di­tions can cause the same symp­toms, includ­ing pneu­mo­nia and acci­den­tal falls; Nikki expe­ri­enced both in the days before her death. At least 32 care­givers con­vict­ed based on SBS have been exon­er­at­ed, and even the doc­tor who pro­posed the con­di­tion has renounced it. Dr. Norman Guthkelch called for a review of SBS con­vic­tions in 2012, say­ing, ​“I am frankly quite dis­turbed that what I intend­ed as a friend­ly sug­ges­tion for avoid­ing injury to chil­dren has become an excuse for impris­on­ing inno­cent peo­ple.” In his peti­tion, Mr. Roberson asked the Court to con­sid­er whether a con­vic­tion vio­lat­ed due process when the entire cau­sa­tion the­o­ry of the crime was under­mined by mod­ern sci­ence and med­i­cine, and when the habeas court ruled against the defen­dant based on out­dat­ed foren­sic the­o­ries. Physicians, sci­en­tists, fed­er­al judges, and inno­cence advo­cates joined in ask­ing the Court to grant Mr. Roberson relief. ​“Robert Roberson is an inno­cent father who has lan­guished on Texas’s death row for 20 years for a crime that nev­er occurred and a con­vic­tion based on out­dat­ed and now refut­ed sci­ence,” said Gretchen Sims Sween, Mr. Roberson’s attor­ney. ​“Robert’s legal team has been con­sid­er­ing remain­ing options, which now can and must be pur­sued in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion today to turn away from this righteous case.”