Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case After Handwritten Filing From Prisoner Representing Himself
from the don't-see-that-every-day dept
In the past, we've noted just how complicated it is to file a petition to the Supreme Court to hear your case. Many of the rules seem designed to make it difficult and expensive. While that may be useful in lowering the number of crackpot filings, it still seems to go too far. It's especially difficult for "pro se" filings -- people who are representing themselves, rather than having a lawyer do it for them. While many pro se cases are disasters from the beginning (no need to mention the old joke about a "fool for a client"), sometimes they can get somewhere. Popehat alerts us to the news that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case ("granted cert," as they say) in Holt v. Hobbs, after the petitioner, a prisoner by the name of Gregory Holt, filed a handwritten petition.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: court filing, gregory holt, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the "Damn if he doesn't have a point department"
"A 1/2 inch beard would not be a security threat when inmates are allowed to grow large afros and thick head hair."
Nope can't disagree there.
On an unrelated note:
What did this guy do to be sentenced to Super-max?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the "Damn if he doesn't have a point" department
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's political correctness for you!
(Especially under Obama, where the establishment has been ordered to bend over backwards to appease Islamists).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Source? Proof? Link? Anything other than right wing rhetoric that is simply a dog-whistle for racism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At this point people like you are just straight up racist and lazy to boot when you can't just... I don't know... go into TechDirt history and dig up articles where Obama hasn't done things that appeal at all to the regular readership that frequent this blog.
I hope you learn what a waste of human shit you are and safely kill yourself in a waste management facility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is also a case alleging constitutional infringement. Since the Supreme Court only hears cases about Constitutionality of things, every case they hear is a case related to that.
So what's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I looked him up...
He murdered his girlfriend by slitting her throat open.
He claimed in court that he was not bound by US law and only recognized Sharia law.
He called himself the "American Taliban".
...and threatened the jury with "jihad" if they found him guilty!
Yep. He's exactly the kind of scum that the SCOTUS should be entertaining while they turn away important cases that they want to avoid ruling on.
http://dlemma.blogspot.com/2010/06/muslim-who-cut-girlfriends-throat-gets.html?m=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I looked him up...
He has a good point, the law does not seem to be applied equally to all people.
If you disagree with what I have said fear the day your race, religion, or creed falls out of style and you are treated differently than others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I looked him up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I looked him up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A safe Cert
How many death row cases got filed and turned away, I wonder?
Most pro-se cases are from prisoners, and are desperate attempts to have someone, anyone hear their case-and the SC usually ignores them. The rules are extremely complicated as Mike noted, and are designed to limit all but the most important issues.
It's a religious issue, and that's important. Life and death are not, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of a movie scene...
In this case, "Guess you should have thought about the many inconveniences you might face before you murdered your girlfriend."
He has a point about precedents that allow other groups to wear variant hair styles. The way I see it, the only good thing that might come out of this is a general ruling by SCOTUS that violent felons (who have removed all rights from their victims) have lost all but the most basic rights for themselves. Failure of prisons to cater to varying cultures and religions does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
One can move anything from the realm of preference to that of conviction. However, the only true test of conviction is that someone is willing to die for that belief. If all Muslims began committing suicide rather than get shaved, there might be a worthwhile Supreme Court argument. Until then, not so much.
Then again, we should consider that this perpetrator is asking for greater freedom to practice the very belief system under which he slit his girlfriend's throat. (In other words, he was a practicing Muslim when he committed his crime. This does not by itself invalidate Islamic belief, but one could argue the efficacy of such a belief system for those convicted of heinous crimes.) His defense was not based on innocence, repentance, or even remorse, but rather that only Sharia law applies to him.
The SCOTUS might be looking at this from the perspective of the "free exercise" of religion. However, my argument is that granting this (and any similar) petition from prisoners would be "the establishment" of religion.
Maybe the best way to handle cases like this going forward would be for defendants, whose defense is based wholly or in part on the argument that U.S. law does not apply to them because of their beliefs, should first make informed consent that if they are convicted they will also lose the protections afforded by U.S. law until their sentence is fulfilled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reminds me of a movie scene...
In many US states, certain laws appear to be the result of religious beliefs, not scientifically proven facts. Effectively, they are imposing a state-sponsored religion on the rest of us. They might not be fining us for not attending services, but they're making it hard for people who don't share their beliefs to visit loved ones in hospital, inherit property, receive benefits, or control their fertility with drugs, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reminds me of a movie scene...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reminds me of a movie scene...
1. By its very nature, punishment for crime (violation of moral law) is a removal of rights (argued by moral law).
2. The extent of the rights of victim(s) removed by the perpetrator (in this case life itself) should influence the number of rights perpetrators enjoy after conviction. I'm sure "this guy wants" a lot of freedoms for himself. However, his actions and the subsequent removal of rights precludes some of those freedoms, no matter how much he may want them.
3. Free citizens (i.e. free to leave) of a nation who formally deny all authority of that nation's laws over their person may justifiably be denied some or even all of the privileges and protections of that nation's body of law. (enemy combatant?) I'm much more cautious about this one because it opens up many avenues for abuse, but I think it is reasonable if there are sufficient checks and balances.
As for law being based on science, I'd argue that all laws are moral and not scientific. Science is useful to help determine the specifics of how moral law was broken, but moral law is outside the scope of science. Even laws about weights and measures deal with the morality of perverting those systems for gain rather than the things themselves.
If we exclude everything but nature, and assert that our existence is merely a chance reaction of chemicals, then moral law is meaningless. (Your opinion and my opinion would be equally meaningless results of electrochemical interactions. Of course, the fact that I think you and your opinion are worthy of response indicates I don't believe that.) "Law" without the acceptance of the existence of moral law that supersedes human opinion becomes simply an enforced "moral majority" in any society, Christian to cannibal. (Notice how I skirted Godwin's law there. )
He was free to exercise religious expression until he murdered his girlfriend. At that point some of his freedoms (including some religious expression) were removed. Should Muslim prisoners also be free to make a pilgrimage to Mecca? Isn't this one of the five pillars of Islam, way more important that a beard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reminds me of a movie scene...
Although laws are not scientific (and they should be!), they are certainly not moral. What's legal and what's moral are two different circles in the Venn diagram. How much or little they overlap is a legitimate topic of debate, but they are different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interpretation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interpretation
Unless it seriously gets in the way of prison operations, it wouldn't be right to tell a Seventh-Day Adventist that they are forbidden to observe a Saturday Sabbath, simply because other devout Christians choose to practice it on Sunday.
The question in this case should simply be whether it's too burdensome on the prison to allow it. Maybe it is. They may argue that even a 1/2 inch beard could hide contraband, or prevent easy identification. Or that it would to be too burdensome for guards to regularly measure beard length to ensure compliance.
Regardless of how it turns out, it'll be a great learning experience for Mr. Holt. I compliment him for challenging policies in a very civil manner. Best of luck to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Interpretation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contradictions of law
Maybe the best way to handle cases like this going forward would be for defendants, whose defense is based wholly or in part on the argument that U.S. law does not apply to them because of their beliefs, should first make informed consent that if they are convicted they will also lose the protections afforded by U.S. law until their sentence is fulfilled.
From what I understand, part of his defense was that he did not think the US justice system applied to him-only Sharia law.
"The would-be beheader said how he wasn’t bound by American laws, but only recognized the Shariah (Islamic), the law of Islam."
By taking this case, I fear that the SC has stepped into the boundaries of making religion as a way one can be exempt from rules that one has to deal with when incarcerated under our system of justice.
He's using a legal system that he does not recognize..to its' full advantage for his own personal purposes in fulfilling his own personal religious requirements.
If it were a 'class action' suit by a group of prisoners, I would agree with the cert-but sometimes one has to stop and wonder why some cases do get accepted. This is one of them.
The BOP has pretty strict mandates about accommodating religious prisoners, and they do their best to do so.
I believe he's playing the system, he knows he is, and loves every minute of his middle finger waving, because that's what it boils down to in my view.
When you're convicted of murder, you should not expect your rights to be fully enforceable while doing time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contradictions of law
Yes, so? The legal system he "doesn't recognize" is the one that is the largest force in his life. He has no choice but to use it. "Recognition" is irrelevant.
"I believe he's playing the system, he knows he is, and loves every minute of his middle finger waving, because that's what it boils down to in my view"
Again, so? His attitude and intention is also unimportant. What's important is the validity of his arguments. Apparently the Supreme court agrees, since they are hearing the case.
Personally, I suspect the SC took this case because they wanted to make a ruling around this issue and saw an opportunity to do so through it. If my suspicions are correct, they're "playing the system" to the same degree as Mr. Holt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contradictions of law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contradictions of law
__________________________________
All these issues were done much better in The Tudors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Holt will handle the oral arguments since he's in prison.
My guess is that experienced Supreme Court lawyers are lined up right now trying to get Holt to pick them to argue on his behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Holt will handle the oral arguments since he's in prison.
Well played, Mr. Holt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]