Like many, I believe the Supreme Court’s decision Robinson v. California (1962) was a mess. This is a due process decision presented as an Eighth Amendment ruling. That said, I disagree with my colleague Josh Blackman that the case carries no precedential weight because it turns out Robinson died in 1961 before the court took up the case. Josh wrote:
Jurisdiction can be brought at any time, even after death. The court lacks jurisdiction to decide Robinson v. California Because there are no actual cases or disputes. The state is prosecuting a body. Robinson Giving new meaning to habeas corpus companyus. The decision is not entitled to precedential weight. I think the California Attorney General could, at least in theory, petition to vacate Robinson Based on these reasons. That probably won’t happen. but next time Robinson When this happens, the government should flag the issue.
It seems noteworthy that this issue came to the Supreme Court in 1962.
According to California’s July 20, 1962 petition, attorneys for both parties were unaware that Robinson had died. (This is not entirely uncommon in criminal cases involving low-level charges; appellate attorneys may have difficulty maintaining contact with clients who are not in custody and do not have a fixed address.) California’s motion points to the fact that after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the investigation into this The reporter of the case revealed Robinson’s cause of death:
It should be noted, however, that neither the respondent’s counsel nor the amicus counsel were aware of the fact of the appellant’s death until the matter was brought to the attention of the amicus counsel by the public press on June 25, 1962. Post an opinion.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court denied California’s motion on November 13, 1962.
In my opinion, this action by the court was a meaningless gesture that served no purpose in the conduct of the case – the appellant was dead – and, as I read our case, this was inconsistent with the court’s decision in publishing its mission. Pursuant to our holding that the appeal was moot after the appellant’s death, Menken v. City of Atlantic, 131 US 405, 9 S.Ct. 794, 33 Ed.221 (1889), the judgment should be vacated. , and remands the case to state court for appropriate proceedings under state law.
This would be the case even if the opinion and judgment of June 25 were handed down before the appellant* was notified of his death. See Stewart v. Southern R. Co., 315 US 784, 62 S.Ct. 801, 86 Ed. M.A. 1190 (1942), setting aside a previous judgment in the same case, 315 US 283, 62 S.Ct. 616, 86 Ed. M.A. 849. Furthermore, as in Wetzel v. Ohio, 83 S.Ct., there is no question of costs here. 111. Accordingly, I grant the motion for a new trial and vacate the judgment.
Whether or not one agrees with the court’s denial of California’s motion, it seems to me that this issue was settled for the purposes of the Supreme Court 62 years ago. The Supreme Court is of course free to change its decision Robinson One day as a due process case – I personally think they should because that’s what Robinson Indeed. But the motion to explain Robinson’s untimely death was filed long before Elvis Presley had a Top 10 hit with “Return to Sender.”
