Ah well, I see it's been a few weeks since we've had something to sicken the mind and spirit.
Enjoy.
https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1579852329628860417?t=ob6g_2b6OudF70Zjxw_UTg&s=19
An all-white jury convicts a Black man of killing his white wife. Three jurors oppose interracial marriage because people should “stay with their Blood Line.” His lawyers don’t object. Jury sentences him to death. No problem, says the Supreme Court.
The SC has basically said "racial animus isn't enough to invalidate a jury." If their lawyer were worth a damn they would have never been sat on the jury in the first place. But even then, the SC just basically handed the South all the freedom it needs to judge the defendant by just about anything.
Note that this is a denial of certiorari - SCOTUS will not be hearing the case. This is not a SCOTUS decision - it creates no precedent, cannot be cited in any future case at any level of court, and makes no decision about what party is in the right. It does not endorse Texas's position any more than it does Thomas's. It merely states (with no further explanation from the majority) that they do not believe that the Court has grounds to make a decision. The vast majority of cases appealed to the Supreme Court end in exactly this way.
While racial bias issues are the portions being discussed the most, the core nature of the appeal is about the effectiveness of counsel - did the defendant's attorneys represent him competently and according to ethics. The core support for this is that the trial attorney did not do enough to discuss the defendant's mental illness issues, and that the counsel did not do enough to counter racial bias on the jury. The latter is untestable from public information.
Sotomayer, Kagan, and Jackson state in their dissent that they believe the racial issues should have been enough to justify hearing the case, but as far as I can tell "the jury was racist" is not a component of the appeal except as part of the incompetent counsel claim.
Oh damn, apparently having longstanding mental illness and GOUGING OUT YOUR EYE WITH YOUR BARE HANDS doesn’t make you insane in Texas.
The legal definition of insanity has absolutely nothing to do with any other meaning. Delusions, by themselves, do not constitute an insanity defense.
The standard for an insanity plea in the state of Texas is codified as
Sec. 8.01. INSANITY. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.
(b) The term "mental disease or defect" does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 2640, ch. 454, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 29, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Most relevant here is that Texas law does
not include the corollary "a defense against a crime that would not have existed if it were not for the mental illness in question" clause that is now adopted by a large number of states. It is a strict M'Naghten rule clause. Additionally, if your mental illness is a result of drug use, it does not qualify.
To simplify this, if you are a lawyer in Texas, you are representing somebody on trial for murder, and you seek an insanity defense, you have to prove three things
1. That your client suffers from a mental illness that affects their perception of the world
2. That drugs did not cause it
3. That this mental illness was active at the time of the murder
4. That, because of this illness, your client believed that they had the right and/or duty to kill their victim
Thomas's attorney did, in fact, try an insanity defense. His suicide attempt after the killing was believed to indicate remorse, and thus a confession that he knew the murders were wrong. Prosecutors also contended that his condition was a result of extensive voluntary drug use, and thus ineligible. Which brings up the great danger of an insanity defense - it is
inherently a confession. When you use "Yes, I did it, but here's why it isn't my fault" as a defense, and they reject the why, it becomes "Yes, I did it."