Jacobs v. Scott

Background

Jesse Dewayne Jacobs is a man convicted in Texas of murdering Etta Ur-díales. After his arrest he gave a videotaped confession, led officers to the body, and the State relied heavily on that confession at his trial. Jacobs testified at trial that the confession was false, admitting only to kidnapping and saying he lied because he preferred death over life in prison. A jury convicted him and sentenced him to death. Months later, Jacobs’s sister Bobbie Hogan was tried. At her trial the same prosecutor abandoned the earlier theory that Jacobs was the shooter, vouched for Jacobs’s truthfulness, said further investigation pointed to Hogan as the killer, and called Jacobs as a witness. Police officers at that trial also testified that parts of Jacobs’s original confession were untrue.

Reasoning

The filing before the Court sought a stay of execution and review. Justice Scalia referred the stay application to the Court; the Court denied the stay and denied certiorari. Justice Breyer said he would grant the stay. Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissented from the denial, arguing that the State’s later repudiation of its case and the prosecutor’s statements raise serious questions about Jacobs’s guilt and possible prosecutorial misconduct.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused the stay and review, Texas is permitted to proceed toward executing Jacobs unless other relief is obtained. The ruling does not resolve the underlying innocence claim on the merits. The dissent warns that carrying out the death sentence after the State has disavowed the factual basis for the conviction may be fundamentally unfair and raises due-process concerns.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens’s dissent focuses on prosecutorial inconsistency, the State’s change of position, and prior decisions condemning knowingly false testimony, and he urges a stay so the Court can consider Jacobs’s claims.