Navigate

  •  
Case Summaries for the '07 season of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta

NY v. Lopez Torres

Knight v. Commissioner

John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. U.S.

Wright v. Van Patten

Arave v. Hoffman

Kimbrough v. U.S.

Gall v. U.S.

Watson v. U.S.

Logan v. U.S.

CSX Transportation v. Georgia State Board of Equalization

Board of Ed. of N.Y. v. Tom F.

Allen v. Siebert

  •  

WRIGHT v. VAN PATTEN

On appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Who’s Who?
Mr. Van Patten is the criminal. Mr.Wright is the state representative who is responsible for Mr.Van Patten’s imprisonment.

How did we get to the Supreme Court?
Mr. Van Patten pled no contest to first-degree reckless homicide in Wisconsin. Funny thing was, his attorney “phoned it in” - the defense attorney participated in the plea hearing by telephone. (One might wonder why, but, the decision doesn’t explain it.)

Mr. Van Patten got a new attorney and fought his state conviction, on the basis that hie attorney should have been physically present.

And he lost - First, in the state Court of Appeals. Second, in the state Wisconsin Supreme Court. Third, in the Federal District Court. But, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the other three courts: Those courts were asking the wrong questions.

The other courts were asking the questions: Was attorney deficient? If so, did the attorney's deficiencies prejudice the defendant (Van Patten)? The Seventh Circuit thought the question was: Was the attorney present?

The attorney wasn't present, right? The attorney was somewhere else, and was only on the phone.

So the Wisconsin appealed to the Supreme Court the first time. And the Supreme Court returned the case to the Seventh Circuit for reconsideration in light of a case called Carey v. Musladin.

The Seventh Circuit couldn't figure out what they were supposed to be reconsidering. Carey v. Musladin didn't have much to do with what the Seventh Circuit thought it was deciding. So the Seventh Circuit stood by its previous decision.

Wiconsin appealed again, and the Supreme Court took the case again.

How did the Supreme Court decide?

If the Supreme Court says it thinks some mostly unrelated decision should be considered on remand, the smart money is betting the original appellate court decision made a mistake applying the law of the mostly unrelated decision.

And here is the mistake (get ready, its a tricky one): The statute that Van Patten is using to appeal, which is 28 U. S. C. §2254, requires reversal of the state court only if the state court unreasonably applied federal law. The State couldn't have unreasonably applied the law because there is no clear law. Wisconsin didn't unreasonably apply federal law.

Did the Supreme Court actually decide whether attorneys can participate by telephone?
No. The Court wrote that it will answer that question later:
“ Our own consideration of the merits of telephone practice, however, is for another day, and this case turns on the recognition that no clearly established law contrary to the state court’s conclusion justifies collateral relief.”

Van Patten lost because the law isn't clear, and the Supreme Court skipped the chance to make it clear?
Yes. But, that is the way deciding appellate cases work. The Supreme Court does hint that it would have disagreed with the original Seventh Circuit opinion in a footnote:
“We have made clear that ... 'the possibility of presuming prejudice based on an attorney’s failure to test the prosecutor’s case, [happens when] the attorney’s failure [is] complete.' It is undisputed that this standard has not been met here.”
Basically, appearing by telephone is not a complete failure. So if you want to decide whether an attorney's participation by telephone is constitutionally deficient, ask the two basic questions that apply to most attorney conduct: Was attorney deficient? If so, did the attorney's deficiencies prejudice the defendant?

What is the quotable quote?
“Because our cases give no clear answer to the question presented, let alone one in Van Patten’s favor, 'it cannot be said that the state court 'unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established Federal law.'”
Next Case
© Clarinet Esq. | valid xhtml 1.0 | Design by wfiedler adapted by Clarinet Esq.