Constitutional Law

High Court Dismisses Cigarette Maker's Challenge To Punitive Damages Award; Upholds Ill. Murder Conviction

With little comment, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Philip Morris's appeal of a punitive damages award to a smoker's widow. The high court heard oral argument late last year in the case, but today said the case in Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams, was dismissed as 'improvidently granted.' The high court's action lets stand an Oregon Supreme Court ruling in favor of Mayola Williams, whose husband Jesse, a longtime smoker, died of lung cancer in 1997. The Washington Post reports that the punitive damages award of $800,000 has grown with interest to almost $150 million.

Also today, in a unanimous decision, the justices upheld an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that affirmed a murder conviction of Michael Rivera even though the trial court seated a juror his lawyer sought to have dismissed. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the lawyer's peremptory challenge should have been granted, but that failing to do resulted in a harmless error. The justices agreed. Rivera was convicted of murder for shooting Marcus Lee, a 16-year-old African-American. During the jury selection, Rivera's lawyer sought to use a peremptory challenge to block Deloris Gomez from the jury. Gomez said during questioning that she worked in a county hospital where she interacted with patients, some of them gunshot victims, during the check-in process. Gomez maintained, however, that her work would not make her a biased juror. The trial judge, however, refused to dismiss Gomez, suggesting that she was being discriminated against. The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that while Gomez should not have been seated, the situation did not amount to the type of error that required reversal of the conviction. Writing for the Court in Rivera v. Illinois, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concluded that because 'peremptory challenges are within the States' province to grant or withhold the mistaken denial of a state-provided peremptory challenge does not, without more, violate the Federal Constitution.' Ginsburg continued that the 'trial judge's refusal to excuse juror Gomez did not deprive Rivera of his constitutional rights to a fair trial before an impartial jury.'

In another unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a congressional resolution apologizing for the overthrow of Hawaii's monarchy in 1893 did not bar the state from selling or transferring some of its land. Writing for the Court in Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the Hawaii Supreme Court 'incorrectly held that Congress, by adopting the Apology Resolution, took away from the citizens of Hawaii the authority to resolve an issue that is of great importance to the people of the State.'

Full post as published by ACS Blog on March 31, 2009 (boomark / email).