The NYT has turned its attention to a case out of Tennessee that the Supreme Court heard yesterday involving a man who killed an elderly couple while under (his attorneys say) the influence of enough drugs to stop an elephant. The prosecutors argued that he was not a drug addict, just a cold-blooded murderer, and are now accused of withholding evidence they had that would have helped the case of the accused, Gary Cone:
After Mr. Cone's lawyers finally obtained the withheld evidence more than a decade after his conviction, prosecutors gave the courts a series of wildly inconsistent reasons for why Mr. Cone's conviction and death sentence should not be re-examined in light of the new information. The issue had already been decided, they said. Or it had been presented too late. Or it had never been presented at all.
The Times account reports that some Supreme Court justices, including even (to a point) the virulently right-wing Antonin Scalia, were dubious about the prosecutors' arguments.
This is a good example of why we need to be careful about charges. Even Blago is an innocent man right now. He's a sociopath, as I've said, IF he said the things the complaint says he said. But he's still innocent. As to the case at hand, from Tennessee, it's a difficult matter. Cone does not deny committing the murders. And his argument that he had PTSD from his Vietnam service days that led to his drug use, is not exactly bound to elicit much sympathy. But prosecutors have enormous power and they have to use it justly. End of story.
