American Libraries |
||
Site NavigationLeft Sidebar ItemsOnline Features
Follow American Libraries news stories, videos, and blog posts on Twitter.
|
||
Supreme Court Denies Defendant Access to Prison LibraryThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled October 31 that having pretrial access to a law library is not intrinsic to defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to represent themselves. The decision reverses a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that granted Joe Garcia Espitia a new trial on carjacking charges because he was repeatedly denied pretrial prison library access despite repeated orders from the original trial judge. Ultimately, Espitia, who was incarcerated prior to the trial, was allowed to conduct only four hours of research in the prison collection just before closing arguments.W. C. Melcher, Espitia’s attorney, argued that his client “was deprived of any pretrial access to legal research materials and, accordingly, of any opportunity to make a meaningful defense,” the Bloomberg news agency reported October 31. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer countered that the Supreme Court never established a defendant’s right to library access in its 1975 decision that individuals may choose to act as their own counsel. The justices agreed with Lockyer, stating that Faretta v. California “says nothing about any specific legal aid that the state owes” people who represent themselves. In the unsigned ruling, the High Court also noted that Espitia “had declined, as was his right, to be represented by a lawyer with unlimited access to legal materials.” Kane v. Espitia has been remanded to the Ninth Circuit Court for review. Two days after the decision, Pennsylvania Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett Jr. filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of a separate case regarding inmates’ right to access prison libraries and receive periodicals other than religious and legal publications. Corbett is seeking to overturn a 2–1 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which stated that inmates in a Pittsburgh maximum-security prison should not be denied reading materials as a disciplinary tool. Judges Julio M. Fuentes and Max Rosenn wrote that “there was no valid, rational connection” between the denial of materials and the “stated rehabilitative purpose.” The dissenting opinion, written by Judge and Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., characterized the prison regulation as “a last resort” and prison library visits as impractical in maximum-security settings because inmates had to be “placed in hand and leg irons and . . . escorted by two officers” when they leave their cells, according to the November 2 New York Times. Posted November 4, 2005. |
Right Sidebar
|
|
