Thomas Blasts Supreme Court For Allowing Retrial In Hammer Robbery Case
On Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a sharp dissent after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a lower court’s decision that overturned the conviction of David M. Smith, an Ohio man sentenced to 22 years for a brutal hammer attack.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit had ruled last year that the identification process in Smith’s case violated his due process rights. This decision allows Smith to face a new trial. In his dissent, Justice Thomas criticized the 6th Circuit for improperly granting Smith’s habeas corpus petition and ordering a retrial, a view echoed by Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative member of the Court.
According to Thomas, the lower court disregarded the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a law that limits federal courts’ authority to overturn state court convictions. “The Sixth Circuit’s decision is the latest in a long line of blatant AEDPA abuses,” Thomas wrote, as reported by the Washington Examiner. He warned that the ruling undermines state courts and poses significant challenges for law enforcement and crime victims.
“Retrials inflict substantial pain on crime victims” and risk allowing “perpetrators of violent crimes [to] go free,” Thomas added.
Smith had been convicted in 2015 for attempting to kill Quortney Tolliver, who suffered life-threatening skull and facial fractures from a hammer attack in her home. Weeks after the incident, Tolliver identified Smith as the perpetrator. However, the appeals court ruled that the identification process was “unduly suggestive” and unreliable.
Ohio Attorney General David Yost (R) defended the original conviction, arguing that Smith was tied to the crime through DNA evidence and phone records. Yost criticized the appellate court for overstepping its bounds in requiring a retrial. “The Sixth Circuit not only mishandled the law of eyewitness testimony, it fumbled the law that sets the rule of decision for federal habeas courts,” Yost said in an October filing to the Supreme Court.
Monday’s decision marks the second time the Supreme Court has declined to review the 6th Circuit’s ruling, the first rejection occurring in November when the Court denied an earlier petition.
Thomas warned that retrying the nearly decade-old case would burden resources, risk losing critical evidence, and cause further suffering for the victim. “Retrial diverts significant time and resources away from other law enforcement activities, and it is often ‘more difficult’ because of ‘the erosion of memory’ and ‘dispersion of witnesses’ that accompany the passage of time,” he noted.
Despite these concerns, prosecutors remain free to pursue a retrial under the guidelines set by the appeals court’s ruling.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court recently made headlines by rejecting efforts from Montana Republicans to invoke the controversial “independent state legislature” theory to reinstate two state election laws.
The theory, which the Court rejected in 2023, argues that state legislatures hold near-absolute power over election rules, with limited interference from state courts. While the justices ruled that state courts retain the authority for judicial review, the majority opinion clarified that this authority is not without limits.
Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) urged the Court to reconsider the issue in her appeal to reinstate two state laws: one banning same-day voter registration and another restricting paid ballot collection on election day.
The Montana Supreme Court had invalidated these laws in a 5-2 decision, citing conflicts with the state constitution. Jacobsen, represented by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R), argued in court filings, “In short, the Montana Supreme Court has assumed a de facto new role as the final and exclusive arbiter of all federal election legislation in Montana. This Court’s review is urgently needed.”
Support for Montana’s petition came from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, 15 Republican state attorneys general, and the America First Legal Foundation. However, Montana Democrats countered, urging the justices to uphold the lower court’s decision. They maintained that the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling was based on a robust trial record and well-established state law, stating, “The court’s analysis was based on the ample trial record in this case and firmly grounded in existing Montana law. There was nothing extraordinary or inappropriate about it,” as reported by The Hill.
For now, both cases underscore the ongoing tension between state and federal courts over high-stakes legal decisions.