Like many, I imagine the Supreme Courtroom’s determination Robinson v. California (1962) What a large number. It is a due course of determination offered as an Eighth Modification ruling. Having mentioned that, I disagree with my colleague Josh Blackman’s POV The case had no precedential weight as a result of it turned out that Robinson had died in 1961 earlier than the court docket may take up the case. Josh wrote:
Jurisdiction could be asserted at any time, even after loss of life. The court docket lacks jurisdiction to resolve Robinson v. California As a result of there aren’t any precise instances or disputes. The state is prosecuting a physique. Robinson Giving new that means to habeas corpus firmus. The choice has no precedential weight. I believe the California Legal professional Normal may, at the least in principle, petition to vacate Robinson Based mostly on these causes. That most likely will not occur. however subsequent time Robinson When this occurs, the federal government ought to flag the difficulty.
It appears noteworthy that this difficulty got here earlier than the Supreme Courtroom in 1962. Motion to vacate judgment or reopen case This knowledgeable the court docket of Robinson’s loss of life.
based on california petitiondated July 20, 1962, and attorneys on either side had been unaware that Robinson was lifeless. (This isn’t fully unusual in felony instances involving low-level costs; appellate attorneys could have problem sustaining contact with shoppers who should not in custody and would not have a set tackle.) California’s movement factors to the truth that after the Supreme Courtroom’s ruling, the investigation into this The reporter of the case revealed Robinson’s reason for loss of life:
It needs to be famous, nonetheless, that neither the respondent’s counsel nor the amicus counsel had been conscious of the actual fact of the appellant’s loss of life till the matter was dropped at the eye of the amicus counsel by the general public press on June 25, 1962. Put up an opinion.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Courtroom denied California’s movement on November 13, 1962.
For my part, this motion by the court docket was a meaningless gesture that served no objective within the conduct of the case – the appellant was lifeless – and, as I learn our case, this was inconsistent with the court docket’s determination in publishing its mission. Pursuant to our holding that the enchantment was moot after the appellant’s loss of life, Menken v. Metropolis of Atlantic, 131 US 405, 9 S.Ct. 794, 33 Ed.221 (1889), the judgment needs to be vacated. , and remands the case to state court docket for applicable proceedings underneath state regulation.
This could be the case even when the opinion and judgment of June 25 had been handed down earlier than the appellant*’s loss of life was notified. See Stewart v. Southern R. Co., 315 US 784, 62 S.Ct. 801, 86 Ed. M.A. 1190 (1942), setting apart a earlier judgment in the identical case, 315 US 283, 62 S.Ct. 616, 86 Ed. M.A. 849. Moreover, as in Wetzel v. Ohio, 83 S.Ct., there isn’t any query of prices right here. 111. Accordingly, I grant the movement for a brand new trial and vacate the judgment.
Whether or not or not one agrees with the court docket’s denial of California’s movement, it appears to me that the difficulty was settled for the needs of the Supreme Courtroom 62 years in the past. The Supreme Courtroom is after all free to vary its determination Robinson Sooner or later as a due course of case – I personally suppose they need to as a result of that is what Robinson Certainly. However the movement to clarify Robinson’s premature loss of life was filed lengthy earlier than Elvis Presley had a High 10 hit with “Elvis Presley.” “Return to sender.”
