Cash v. Maxwell
The Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court ruling that granted habeas relief to a man convicted of murder based partly on testimony from a jailhouse informant with a long history of fabricating confessions.
Justice Sotomayor wrote separately explaining why she agreed with denying review, while Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Alito, dissented, arguing the appeals court wrongly second-guessed a state court's factual findings and that the Court should have summarily reversed.
How it got here: A California state habeas court and later the federal district court denied relief; the Ninth Circuit reversed and granted habeas relief, and the State asked the Supreme Court to review that reversal.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Bobby Joe Maxwell was convicted in 1984 of two murders during the "Skid Row Stabber" killings in Los Angeles, based partly on testimony from jailhouse informant Sidney Storch, who claimed Maxwell confessed to him. Evidence later emerged that Storch had a pattern of fabricating other inmates' confessions using details from newspaper articles, and Maxwell sought federal habeas relief arguing his conviction rested on false testimony and withheld evidence.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court have stepped in and reversed a ruling that threw out two decades-old murder convictions over a jailhouse informant's credibility?
Why it matters
The decision leaves in place a ruling that could require California to retry or release a man convicted of murder over 25 years ago, even though key witnesses and evidence may no longer be available. It also highlights ongoing disagreement among the justices over how much deference federal courts must give to state court fact-finding in habeas cases involving informant testimony.
What changes now
Because certiorari was denied, the Ninth Circuit's ruling granting habeas relief to Maxwell stands, and the case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with that ruling. California officials will need to decide whether to retry Maxwell, a prospect complicated by the decades that have passed and the loss of witnesses and evidence. The Supreme Court's action is not a ruling on the merits of the underlying constitutional claims.
What this does not decide
The denial of certiorari does not mean the Supreme Court endorsed the Ninth Circuit's reasoning or resolved the underlying legal questions about false testimony and disclosure obligations. It simply means the Court chose not to review the case, leaving the Ninth Circuit's decision in place without a ruling from the Supreme Court on the merits.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Sotomayor
“Sidney Storch was one of the most notorious jailhouse informants in the history of Los Angeles County.”Sotomayor describing the informant whose credibility was central to the case.
Justice Sotomayor wrote to explain her agreement with denying certiorari, arguing the Ninth Circuit had thoroughly documented overwhelming evidence that the informant Storch was a habitual liar with a track record of fabricating confessions using newspaper details. She argued this evidence was more than sufficient to meet the demanding standard for finding a state court's factual determination unreasonable, and pushed back point-by-point against Justice Scalia's characterization of the evidence as merely circumstantial.
Dissent — Justice Scalia
Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Alito, argued the Ninth Circuit ignored the strict deference AEDPA requires and improperly set aside the state court's factual findings based on merely circumstantial evidence of Storch's general dishonesty rather than proof he lied specifically about Maxwell's confession. He also criticized the Ninth Circuit for extending due process doctrine beyond what the Court has held regarding false testimony, and argued the Court should have summarily reversed rather than deny certiorari.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Federal habeas law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act requires courts to defer to a state court's factual findings unless the state court's decision was 'based on an unreasonable determination of the facts,' a standard the courts have called demanding and rarely satisfied.
- The state court had found no credible evidence that the informant, Sidney Storch, lied about the defendant's supposed confession, and had denied habeas relief on that basis.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed extensive evidence — including Storch's history of fabricating other inmates' confessions, his criminal record for dishonesty, and multiple prosecutors' and officers' doubts about his reliability — and concluded the state court's factual finding could not reasonably be sustained.
- Justice Sotomayor's statement concluded that this evidence met the demanding standard for overturning a state court's factual finding, so declining further review was appropriate.
- Because the Court denied certiorari, it did not rule on the merits of the dispute, leaving the Ninth Circuit's decision granting habeas relief in place.