Court of Diminishing Resort : Two recent rulings further chip away at defendants’ rights

The Supreme Court last week tightened its already vice-like grip on the constitutional protections accorded criminal suspects and defendants.

The court’s agenda--to rewrite decades of criminal precedent in order to end what one justice labeled “perpetual disrespect for the finality of convictions”--is steadily stripping away two bedrock principles of the criminal justice system: that an individual is innocent until proven guilty and that every defendant has the right to a full and fair trial.

Two decisions last week increase the chance that suspects will be indicted falsely and make it much harder to rectify erroneous indictments, trials and convictions.

In one case, a 5-to-4 majority held that federal district courts cannot dismiss criminal indictments simply because federal prosecutors failed to disclose to the grand jurors evidence that might have led them not to indict. Interestingly enough, once a defendant comes to trial, the government must reveal exculpatory evidence in its possession.

That’s why this decision makes little sense--unless the court’s subtle intent was to erode presumptions of innocence. The grand jury historically stands as the bulwark between citizens and the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. Its power is awesome: By indicting, the grand jury can destroy lives and careers, if even a trial jury later finds a defendant not guilty. For that reason, prosecutors have a duty not simply to seek a conviction but to adhere to a higher standard--that of fairness.

The court also advanced its long-advertised mission to limit severely the ability of state prisoners to bring constitutional challenges to convictions or sentences into federal court through petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

A 5-to-4 majority ruled that federal courts are not obligated to grant a hearing on a state prisoner’s challenge, even when the prisoner can show that his lawyer had not properly presented crucial facts in the case. Even Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who in the past supported restrictive rulings on habeas corpus, said she thought the majority had gone too far in this case.