Wong v. Smith

Background

Anthony Smith and a codefendant were tried after burglarizing and robbing a Sacramento couple and sexually assaulting the woman; semen from the scene matched Smith’s DNA while the victim initially identified the other man. After several days the jury was deadlocked on the sexual‑assault count. The trial judge gave a modified Allen charge, played taped statements from the defendants, and then commented on certain evidence, reminding jurors they were the exclusive judges of the facts. The jury later convicted Smith on that count; state courts denied relief, but a federal district court and a Ninth Circuit panel granted Smith habeas relief.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the state appellate court unreasonably applied this Court’s rule against coercive jury instructions when the trial judge commented on the evidence. The Supreme Court declined to take the case and denied the petition for review, which leaves the Ninth Circuit’s habeas ruling in place. The denial does not settle the underlying legal debate about when a judge’s comments become coercive, because the Court did not decide the merits.

Real world impact

As a result, the lower‑court decisions granting habeas relief remain effective for this defendant. Trial judges and appellate courts nationwide get no new, binding guidance from this Court on how far a judge may go in commenting on evidence. Because this was a refusal to review rather than a merits ruling, the issue can return in other cases and the law remains unsettled.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia, dissented from the denial. He argued the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicted with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and that long common‑law practice supports trial judges’ authority to comment on evidence; he would have granted review.