But here’s the rest of the story anyway. . .. .
The Chief clerk told us we could wait in the lawyer’s lounge where the argument would be piped in. Hey, that was good enough for us. Then, the other clerk, the one who actually handles the briefs and whatnot – told us to wait a second and she went to find out if there were seats for us. She came back and said to check with the man at the desk at 9:50 (arguments start promptly at 10. Actually, admissions start at 10:00, and then arguments start right after). So, at 9:50, we went out to ask and were told to wait by the door. We were then escorted inside the courtroom! We sat in the back and I was like a little kid (well, I am sort of like a little kid in size so I couldn’t see over all the big people because its not theatre seating). The Chief Clerk called out “Oyez Oyez” and the entire room of 150 people went silent. Then they came out. It was like, I dunno what it was like. It was like being in the supreme court. That’s what it was like!
So, admissions started. A bunch of people got admitted and it turns out that if you have a supreme court bar card, you don’t have to wait in line. You get to go in the super secret side entrance and you get to sit in front of the bar. The well of the court is very small – intimate.
The case we came for was argued first. The State presented its argument and got 45 seconds of it out before Sandra Day O’Connor asked her a question that would set the theme for the State’s entire argument. Scalia was on her side and was helping her along (suprise) and Thomas sat mum. Ginsberg seemed confused as to why they shouldn’t defer to the trial court’s ruling.
Then our side argued. And, I have to say, I might be biased, but it was stellar. And, I do believe that it was the argument that turned things around. The decision in this case came down two weeks after the argument and its my understanding that its rare for the Court to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted BEFORE argument. But, I think the Court realized this wasn’t the case it originally thought it was and it became very clear that this case should not be the one to change, modify, or narrow any Constitutional right to counsel. Oh, the best question came from Justice Roberts who asked “Well, if the statement is suppressed, Mr. Blake can’t be prosecuted, can he?” To which Scalia replied “Well, he can be prosecuted federally, can’t he”. Blake’s lawyer simply said that that shouldn’t be a consideration for the Court, but it concerned us anyway. What if they decided against Blake simply because they wanted to see him prosecuted.
Two weeks later the news came that the case was dismissed. Overjoyed? Yes. Disappointed that there was no decision? Yes and no. Yes, because hey, wouldn’t that have been cool. No because we all know that the Court is not likely to keep its “liberal” right to counsel interpretation in effect for much longer. I say “liberal” with more than a great deal of sarcasm. Sometimes, my heart cries out for New York, where I hardly ever had to quote from the Supreme Court because well, we are New York. I particularly miss practice in my small jurisdiction, where no one went to jail for half a blunt. Where you actually needed probable cause for a search warrant. Where they didn’t give out wiretaps orders like candy. But, if I’d stayed there, who knows how long it would have been before I’d see the inside of the Supreme Court.
