E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
"Touch move" is a central rule of tournament chess. You intentionally touch a piece, you must move it (assuming the piece can be legally moved), even if you realize you could have made a much better move. Most games have similar rules, reflecting a belief that strategy is an important component to determining winners and losers.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Rompilla v. Beard highlights how similar death trials are becoming to games of strategy. The issue was whether two public defenders were constitutionally ineffective because they did not find evidence concerning the defendant's mental condition and history of abuse that might have been a mitigating factor at his trial. A 5-4 majority found ineffective assistance. As an opponent of the death penalty, this is good news. But I have to confess there is much to Justice Kennedy's dissenting opinion that this was not ineffective assistance. I've certainly seen courts let much worse go by.
The more interesting political and constitutional question is why we should care very much about the ineffective assistance question when even the dissent admits that a different investigation would have turned up "useful information." So what if it turns out that the reason counsel failed to turn up mitigating evidence was a reasonable use of scarce time and resources rather than a clear legal mistake. I've lost chess games because I made a mistake an intentionally touched the wrong piece. Do we also execute people because their counsel made a reasonable decision that in hindsight turns out to be a mistake. Posted
10:32 AM
by Mark Graber [link]
Comments:
I think the point here is nothing more profound than that any procedure that aspires to be finite must have a stopping rule. A point at which you say, "Enough, already; You've had your shot at winning it."
We may disagree where that point would be, but it has to be somewhere, and somebody is always going to be unhappy when it's reached.
to a point i agree with brett that there is a stopping point where you say enough already. for me, even taking into account that i am generally against the death penalty, the stopping point is once it has been determined that the evidence overlooked, the investigation not undertaken, etc. would not have changed the outcome of the trial if all had been properly put before the jury. i don't know how you can determine that without a jury, but there must be some way of doing it.