Supreme Courts’ Decision-Making and Ethics Essay

Introduction

Legal ethics thematically covers various aspects of public justice. The main terminology is formed by the terms of the ethics of judge and lawyer, the judiciary in relation to the legislative and executive powers, judicial proceedings, and justice. A judge must follow high standards of morality and ethics, be honest, preserve personal dignity in all situations, cherish his honor, and avoid anything that might diminish the authority of the judiciary and damage the judge’s reputation. This preserves the confidence of citizens in the judicial system and makes judicial decisions more humane. The U.S. Supreme Court’s application of ethical standards in deciding cases should be promulgated.

Analysis of Ethics Principles

In order to understand exactly how the U.S. Supreme Court rules and what principles guide its decisions, it is necessary to turn to an analysis of some cases. Emerging at the intersection of law and ethics, legal ethics is an interdisciplinary discipline that draws on a theoretical foundation of ethics and develops moral standards for the conduct of lawyers in the profession depending on time and situation (Lerman & Schrag, 2018). Applied legal ethics develops primarily in judicial discourse, which discusses the general principles and moral foundations of the legal profession, and in legislative discourse, which formulates imperative requirements that define the norms of judicial conduct.

Legal ethics is one of the central principles guiding the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case of Hall vs. Florida, the essence of the debate was to establish the competency of the accused citizen. On appeal, the court held that there was substantial evidence of mental retardation but said that this could not exclude his guilt (Supreme Court of the United States, 2014a). Citing Atkins vs. Virginia, the judges were able to restore justice by explaining that the defendant’s IQ falls within the criterion that allows a person to be sentenced to death (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002). The principle of ethics applies in this case as follows. Recognizing the gravity of the crime committed by the accused, namely the murder of the sheriff, the judges realize that the situation is twofold: on the one hand, the person may be exempted from punishment; on the other hand, he may not (Supreme Court of the United States, 2014a). Nevertheless, the morality of the issue allowed the judges to consider the exemption from punishment as unreasonable.

Another example is Rosemond vs. United States. Here the ethical principle is not quite obvious, but it is there. The fact is that the defendants are parties to a case related to drugs and weapons, which is very dangerous for the public. An opportunity arose before the court to hold the person responsible, which is the worst for him (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013). However, this did not happen because Judge Kalgan, on behalf of all his colleagues, in his judgment points to the lack of conscious assistance in bringing the case to an end (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013). Although the meaning of this rejoinder is more legal, the judges in some way entered into the position of the defendant; that is, they looked at the situation from a moral point of view (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013). This is confirmed by the fact that the court had a choice in which the judges took a more lenient stance towards the defendant.

The most telling example of how ethical standards were applied to a decision is Navarette vs. California. At issue was an anonymous 911 call that conveyed potentially false information (Supreme Court of the United States, 2014b). On the one hand, the police suspended the driver and cited evidence of unresponsive driving. The TEO allows the court to impose a sanction on the defendant. Nevertheless, judges compare the unreasonableness of the charges to the possibility of a loss of civil liberties (Supreme Court of the United States, 2014b). In other words, in reaching their decision, the judges entered the defendant’s position, thereby protecting him from unfairness. Since the judges mentioned civil liberties, it is necessary to examine the issue more closely from an ethical perspective.

For a number of years, the language of law functioning in the discourse of Supreme Court decisions U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the entire period of its existence has been the object of study. The identification of the main trends in the development of terminology requires the study of “growth zones,” the most actively developing terms, whose functioning is characterized by a significant increase in the relative frequency in recent times (Lerman & Schrag, 2018). It is necessary to identify the totality of legal ethics terms, expressing the concepts of the moral and ethical aspect of justice, in the judicial decisions of the US Supreme Court, to determine the specificity of their functional and structural-semantic characteristics (Lerman & Schrag, 2018). Terms-values include freedom, liberty, life, dignity, fairness, equality. To the terms – principles: justice, justiciability, legality, morality, equal protection, due process of law, the presumption of innocence, common sense (Lerman & Schrag, 2018). Thus, the above terms are used not only in a legal sense but also in an ethical sense (Lerman & Schrag, 2018). This means that when the court uses and operates with these concepts, the ethical component is already embedded in the logic of the court in deciding the case.

Another example of the application of such principles is the cases of Riley vs California and United States vs. Wurie, which should be considered as a whole. Despite the legality of the searches conducted in both cases due to the arrest of the defendants, judges have noted that the value of privacy prevails over the prosecution (Supreme Court of the United States, 2014c). Modern cell phones are an integral part of everyday life; hence the police officers exceeded their authority (United States v. Wurie, 2014). These cases vividly illustrate the judges’ respect for human rights, so they consider the search not only from a legal perspective but also from a moral one.

Conclusion

The illustration of unpredictable changes in judicial decision-making clearly demonstrates that ethical standards are very weighty factors in litigation. It is important for the U.S. Supreme Court not only to restore justice and safeguard the public from potential threats but also to preserve the rights of citizens. This is one of the foundations of the ethical principle, which allows us to affirm the court’s adherence to moral principles. The activation of special lexemes with moral and ethical meanings in the judicial discourse of the U.S. Supreme Court reflects the increasing use of moral sphere terms in judicial interpretation of court cases. The increasing frequency of judicial ethics terms demonstrates the actualization of moral choice issues in the sphere of justice. Increased attention to the issue of defendants’ rights during testimony, in the courtroom, and in prisons has led to a greater demand for terms naming the duties of lawyers to clients, members of the professional community, the judiciary, and the law in general.

References

Atkins v. Virginia. (2002). Legal Information Institute.

Lerman, L. G., & Schrag, P. G. (2018). Ethical problems in the practice of law. Concise edition. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Supreme Court of the United States. (2013). Rosemond v. United States. Web.

Supreme Court of the United States. (2014a). Hall v. Florida. Web.

Supreme Court of the United States. (2014b). Prado Navarette, et al. v. California. Web.

Supreme Court of the United States. (2014c). Riley v. California. Web.

United States v. Wurie. (2014). Legal Information Institute.

Appendix

1. Hall vs. Florida 2014:
   1. Summary: It is unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded person. Rigidly imposing an IQ standard of 70 or lower to determine such retardation creates an unacceptable risk to the convicted person and is inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
   2. Facts: The defendant was sentenced to death for the murder of a deputy sheriff. On appeal, the court ruled that there was substantial evidence of the defendant’s mental retardation, but stated that this could not exclude his guilt. Guided by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins vs Virginia (2002), which was in place at the time of sentencing review, the court took into account that defendant’s IQ ranged between 71 and 80, and ruled that he was not mentally retarded and therefore could be executed.
   3. Justice E. Kennedy (joined by Justices R. Ginsburg, St. Breyer, S. Sotomayor, and E. Kagan): “Not surprisingly, we resort to medical knowledge in adjudicating. The rigid requirement of IQ level is inconsistent with established medical practice because it does not allow for consideration of other evidence that is recognized by medical professionals as relevant to assessing a person’s intellectual condition. Moreover, IQ levels are subject to standard error, i.e., 71 can actually mean 66 to 76 with 95% certainty. Establishing an accurate IQ level based on multiple test data is even more difficult. Most states have rejected a fixed IQ level of 70, indicating a consensus that the rule is unacceptable and inhumane. Defendants have the right to present additional evidence of intellectual impairment.”
   4. Justice S. Alito, J. Roberts, A. Scalia, and C. Thomas dissenting opinion. They hold that in Atkins vs Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court had previously ruled that there was no mandatory method of determining intellectual infringement. Today, the Court rejected that conclusion. The new rule, in their view, is unreasonable. “If we analyze state law, we see,” the justices write, “that there is no consensus on this issue. Ten states do not require consideration of IQ test bias, 12 do, and nine do not express a position (states with no death penalty are not considered). The opinion of the entire American people, not a small professional group of medical professionals, should be considered in making the decision. Furthermore, it is not clear what other evidence of intellectual impairment should be.”
2. Rosemond vs United States 2013:
   1. Summary: Aiding and abetting gun crimes requires that the defendant know in advance that one of his accomplices will be armed. Also, the defendant must have a meaningful opportunity to refuse to commit the crime.
   2. Facts: The defendant and two other individuals drove to the park to sell drugs. The buyer got into the car, hit the salesman unexpectedly, and tried to run away. One of the two salesmen (witnesses differed as to whether it was the defendant or someone else) fired a shot. Because the shooter was not identified, the prosecutor charged the defendant with aiding and abetting the federal crime of using a gun in connection with a drug sale. The defendant argued that he was unaware that his co-defendants were armed. The prosecutor argued that his active participation in the crime of drug sales was sufficient. In his opinion, a person could not have been present and involved in the drug transaction and not have known that his co-defendant would use a weapon.
   3. Judge E. Kagan articulated the majority decision: “A person can be criminally responsible for a specified ‘double’ crime (involving both drugs and weapons) only if he knowingly helped another person to commit it. Two elements are required: positive actions to bring the crime to an end and the intent to facilitate its realization. In this case, even a little assistance to the perpetrator of the crime is sufficient. In this case, the defendant provided no such assistance in the use of weapons, only in the sale of drugs. The law, on the other hand, requires a culpable attitude to the whole crime.”
   4. Dissenting opinion of Justices S. Alito and C. Thomas: “The Court’s decision is correct, but the requirement of a meaningful opportunity to refuse to commit a crime is unacceptable because it alters the statutory rules on aiding and abetting. If a defendant claims he could not refuse to commit a crime, he must plead an extreme necessity or duress in his defense. In making these arguments, the Court broke with common law tradition and common sense.”
3. Navarette vs California 2014:
   1. Summary: An anonymous 911 call about alleged reckless driving indicates there is probable cause for suspicion, hence the police stop of the vehicle is lawful.
   2. Facts: Police received a tip about an emergency call describing a truck and its license plate, and that it had been driven off the road by another vehicle as a result of his traffic violation. The name of the caller was not reported. The patrolman stopped the said truck, although it showed no signs of unlawful behavior. Upon hearing the smell of marijuana, the PO conducted a search and found 30 pounds of narcotics in the truck. He arrested the driver and passengers. The court ruled that the truck’s license plate and direction of travel and dangerous driving were sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
   3. The majority decision was articulated by Justice C. Thomas. That decision notes that the Court has previously affirmed that under certain circumstances, an anonymous report may have sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle. In this case, the message may have been indicative of drunken driving. The caller gave very specific details of what was happening. In addition, emergency calls are traceable, hence the person would think twice before giving false information. Although the police did not see signs of unlawful behavior, they were right not to give the potential offender a second chance, according to the judges.
   4. Justices A. Scalia, R. Ginsburg, S. Sotomayor, and E. Kagan dissenting opinion: “Anonymous emergency calls are not reliable enough without independent corroboration of the information provided by the police. A single episode of reckless driving does not entail a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. While drunk driving is dangerous, so is the loss of our civil liberties.”
4. (4-5) Riley vs California and United States vs Wurie 2014:
   1. Summary: Except in an emergency, police may not search a cell phone without a warrant, even in the course of a lawful arrest.
   2. Facts: In the first case, defendant’s car was stopped by the police and searched, the reason for which was an expired driver’s license. Loaded handguns were found in the car. The defendant was arrested and his smart phone was seized. In addition to other indications of membership in the Bloods gang, a police officer found relevant information on the cell phone. Two hours later, another police officer also found numerous photos and videos on the phone, which later became evidence at sentencing for other crimes related to gang membership. The state Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on a California Supreme Court decision, that a search of a cell phone without a warrant is permissible if conducted in the course of a lawful arrest, as long as the phone is “directly connected” to the arrestee.
   3. In the second case, the defendant was arrested for selling drugs. His folding cell phone at the police station began receiving calls that said “my house.” Upon opening it, police found a picture of a woman with a child and a phone number, and the address of the residence was then calculated and searched. Police found drugs and weapons in the house. The defendant was found guilty, but the appellate court reversed, ruling that cellular telephones are different from other physical evidence obtained during a lawful arrest because they contain more information. Consequently, searching a cell phone without a warrant is prohibited absent an urgent need.
   4. The majority decision was articulated by Justice J. Roberts. It stated that the reasonableness of the search is a critical requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It requires a court order, except for special exceptions. Searches during a lawful arrest are such exceptions. They occur more often than warrant searches. In United States vs Robinson (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a search during a lawful arrest does not require additional justification in seizing items on the person arrested (in this case, a crumpled cigarette packet). However, cell phones are different from similar items because they contain a lot of personal information in digital form, access to which usually requires a warrant. Consequently, the rules in United States vs Robinson do not apply to cell phones. While we seek to provide clear guidance to law enforcement agencies, protecting privacy requires a cost. Today’s cell phones are an integral part of everyday life. “Equating them to a simple notebook is like not distinguishing between flying to the moon and riding horses. There are also problems with the ability to access information stored in the cloud through a cell phone. Digital data itself cannot be used as a weapon. Consequently, once a police officer has seized a phone and thereby eliminated a potential physical threat, security considerations disappear. In the future, exceptions to this rule may be formulated based on specific cases. Regarding the ability to destroy evidence, judges believe that remotely connecting to the phone and destroying information is not a significant problem. There are special means to overcome these threats.
   5. Justice S. Alito’s dissenting opinion: “The court’s decision is correct, but it should be added that, first, a search during a lawful arrest is justified not only by security concerns and the prevention of destruction of evidence, but also by the general need for compelling evidence. Otherwise, the broad limits of such a search, which extends to items that are not dangerous and have already been seized, are meaningless. Second, the legislature, rather than the court, is in a better position to reasonably distinguish the permissibility and impermissibility of searching certain sections of a cell phone without a warrant, based on the categories of information on the phone, and perhaps other particulars.”