Cash v. Maxwell

Background

Bobby Joe Maxwell, convicted in 1984 of two murders and sentenced to life without parole, challenged his convictions based on testimony from a jailhouse informant, Sidney Storch. Storch had testified that Maxwell confessed in jail. Years later, evidence emerged that Storch repeatedly fabricated confessions, used newspaper accounts to fashion stories, wrote a manual on making false statements, and had a long record of dishonesty. The state court concluded there was “no credible or persuasive evidence” that Storch lied at Maxwell’s trial.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the state court’s factual finding was unreasonable under the federal statute that directs judges to give deference to state-court findings but still allows relief when those findings are unreasonable. The Ninth Circuit reviewed a large body of evidence and concluded the state court’s finding was unreasonable, listing multiple instances showing Storch’s pattern of fabrication and prosecutors’ refusal to use him in other trials. Justice Sotomayor agreed with that view and supported the decision to deny the Supreme Court review, saying the Ninth Circuit had carefully explained why the state finding was unreasonable. Justice Scalia disagreed, arguing the Ninth Circuit failed to respect the high level of deference federal courts must give state factual findings.

Real world impact

By leaving the Ninth Circuit’s judgment in place, the federal challenge to Maxwell’s convictions remains viable and could lead to vacatur or retrial complications. The ruling highlights how courts weigh informant credibility and the tension between deference to state courts and correcting possible wrongful convictions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from the denial of review, urging reversal and warning that the Ninth Circuit ignored statutory limits on federal review and improperly set aside state findings.