This was a multiple murder case out of Alaska.
You know an opinion is likely coming out for the defense when it begins - "As Justice Louis D. Brandeis warned many years ago: 'The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.'"
The opinion is very long, covering myriad topics.
Of particular note, the Court excoriated the government for interfering with appointment of counsel under the CJA:
The administration of the CJA is a judicial function for which the Judicial Conference of the United States has approved official guidelines. The prosecution is typically precluded from participating in the determination of a defendant’s eligibility for CJA-appointed counsel.
The Government’s exclusion from the administration of the CJA is a significant contributing factor to the fairness of our system and the CJA’s role in redressing the imbalance of power between an indigent defendant and the Government. “A contrary position might well result in a system wherein the outcome of criminal trials would be determined by the poverty of the accused rather than the integrity of the factfinding process.”
The Court warns: "in the future, the Government should tend to its own knitting."
There is also a detailed discussion (ultimately outcome determinative for the defense) on the use of experts to provide criminal profile testimony as substantive evidence of guilt. This should be very helpful going forward. For instance, the Court rejected the argument that a defendant's opening statement could open the door to such profile testimony.
The Court further explained, "[t]hose jurisdictions that have considered profiles of battering parents, pedophiles, rapists, and drug couriers unanimously agree that the prosecution may not offer such evidence in its case-in-chief as substantive evidence of guilt."
The Court also gives us a good reminder that, "[w]here the district court fails to engage in necessary Rule 403 balancing, we [] review de novo." And, "[w]e begin with a presumption of prejudice, in reviewing the effects of this erroneous admission."
Additionally, the court has a lengthy analysis of other act evidence under Rule 404, which is worth reading.
There is lots more in the opinion. But you get the idea.
