The United States Supreme Court recently declined to review the case of an Ohio man, David Smith, whose conviction for attempted murder had previously been overturned. The initial conviction involved a 2016 attack on Quortney Tolliver. The decision not to reinstate Smith’s conviction was issued as part of an order list released following the Court’s private conference on January 24, 2025.
Justice Clarence Thomas penned a dissenting opinion, supported by Justice Samuel Alito. Thomas openly criticized the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit for its decision to vacate Smith’s 22-year sentence. In his dissent, he argued that the ruling was another instance of federal courts overstepping the bounds of federal law with regard to state criminal convictions. His opinion suggested that by reviewing the state trial court’s decision extensively, the 6th Circuit failed to accord it the substantial deference it was due under federal statutes pertaining to post-conviction relief for state prisoners.
The controversy revolves around the identification of Smith by the victim, Quortney Tolliver. After emerging from a medically induced coma, Tolliver initially failed to identify Smith as her attacker when shown a lineup of photos which excluded him. However, weeks later, a police officer suggested to her that Smith was the assailant and presented her with his photograph, an identification process Smith’s defense argued was overly suggestive. Though a state appeals court found this identification process suggestive, it allowed it on grounds of perceived reliability. This ruling was ultimately contested in federal court, where Smith found the 6th Circuit more receptive to his claims, ordering a new trial unless the state re-prosecuted within six months.
Justice Thomas lamented that this decision imposes burdens on the state, society, and the victim, writing, “That result comes at a steep cost for both society and the victim.” He advocated for reinstating the original conviction without requiring further briefing or argument. The decision highlights ongoing tension between state and federal judicial responsibilities in upholding or vacating state convictions.
Further details about this case can be accessed at SCOTUSblog, where it’s part of a broader discourse on judicial deference in post-conviction reviews.