Now Dumber for Reading Supreme Court Opinions

When I read a Supreme Court opinion like Brown v. Davenport decision, 142 S. Ct. 1510 (2022), I can’t help but think of this line from Billy Madison.

I know Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues are extremely intelligent people, but sometimes people are too smart for their own good and rather than clarifying a topic, end up shrouding that topic in a dense fog.

The caselaw post-conviction litigation is marked by complexity and confusion, primarily due to the lack of clear definitions for essential concepts. Prison inmates, who typically have limited education and below-average intelligence, are expected to follow rules that are so technical and dense that judges struggle to comprehend them.

Here’s where you really see the problem: Try reading a Supreme Court opinion from the perspective of someone who is not personally invested in the adversarial process that generated an opinion, but instead wants to follow the opinion, as you might read a how-to article to learn how to do something. Try looking for instructions and guidance, you’ll soon realize they often produce more confusion than clarity. A Supreme Court opinion is basically what you get when you remove everything authors use when they’re trying to help the reader understand a complicated subject, like subheadings, tables, figures, flowcharts, diagrams, images, timelines, colors, and a table of contents.

The standards governing post-conviction litigation can be clarified by describing their main features.

Scope of application: What situations does the standard cover? For example, does it apply to federal or state convictions, Brady violation or new evidence? All standards have a defined set of situations where they should apply. (This is like the domain of a theory, or scope of a computer function.)

Violation of law. The standard is used to evaluate some violation of law, typically an error at or omission from the defendant’s trial. If the petitioner/defendant claims there were 10 problems with his trial, there must be a way to determine which problems violated defendant’s rights. (This element is comparable to the independent variable in scientific analysis.)

Harm caused by violation. Causal analysis requires examination of facts and comparing the observed outcome to unobserved, potential outcomes. Most discussion of harm centers on how a rights violation affected the probability of conviction, but there is also discussion of how rights violations affect the credibility of trials or a jury’s deliberation. (This element is comparable to the dependent variable in scientific analysis.)

Tolerance for harm. Conceptually, there is a metric system of harmfulness where X units of harm is the legal boiling point. If the wrongful error or omission caused X or more units of harm, it should not be tolerated; the inmate should get a new trial or be released from custody. (This is like setting a hypothesized value greater than 0 for a significance test.)

Burden of proof. Which party has the burden of proof: the petitioner/defendant or the government? (This element is like identifying which hypothesis is the null hypothesis and which is the alternative hypothesis.)

Certainty required for proof. Does the party with burden of proof need to prove its claim with a preponderance of evidence, with reasonable certainty, with clear and convincing evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, with absolute certainty? (This element is compared to the significance level of a hypothesis test.)

A clearer delineation and understanding of these elements are essential to navigate the complexities and uncertainties inherent in this area of legal practice. I agree with the Brown v. Davenport decision insofar as it holds that an inmate must satisfy the “flagrant error” requirement established by AEDPA as well as carrying his burden of proving harmfulness based on Brecht.

What’s confusing about the Court’s analysis in Brown v. Davenport is the requirements are not treated as distinct elements. As a result, the standard is not clear. It is not clear how the decision modifies past decisions or what situations it is meant to apply to. It would be helpful for the Court to clearly identify the main features of the standards it expects others to follow, preferable with a nice clear table and some diagrams.