Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Drill Here, Drill Now |
What happens if one or more SCOTUS justices witness a crime? As an example, let's say that Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Kagan witness a federal crime in person, but the other 5 justices were not present. Is there any precedence? Can a US attorney subpoena the 4 SCOTUS justices as witnesses? Do those 4 justices have to recuse themselves from appeals for injunctions and appeals to guilty verdicts? Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer. | ||
|
| Member |
Interesting question. I am not aware of any precedent for that, so you are in uncharted territory. One probably could subpoena them as witnesses. They then also would not be able to issue a decision in the case, but so few cases are heard up there it really doesn't matter. The other justices would have to vote in favor of accepting it (appeals there are not automatic). In other courts, frequently "sitting" judges are appointed to fill vacancies due to illness, conflicts, etc. Another issue--if it were a state law crime, it is extremely unlikely they would here it; they do not involve themselves in state law matters. | |||
|
Member |
Subpoena issued for a sitting Fedral Justice would be a monumental task in the court even for a US Attorney. If you're talking about the speech tearing, I don't think a prosecutor will go down the road with four members of our highest court. | |||
|
| Big Stack |
Guessing... I see no reason one or more SCOTUS justices, or any other federal court judge could no be supoened as witnesses of a crime. If a case for which any judge was a witness came to their bench, they would have to recuse themselves. | |||
|
| Member |
This. Being a SCOTUS Judge gives you no special powers. As stated the only issue would be if that case they witnessed made it all the way up to the SCOTUS, then they would have to recuse themselves. No different if they witnessed a car accident, they would be subpoenaed to testify at a civil case to The interesting scenario would be if, at an oral argument, with a full panel, a person comes in and shoots/kills someone in the courtroom in front of all the judges. Then the case makes it up to the SCOUTUS. My guess would be they would impanel Fed Judges from another appellate circuit to act as special SCOTUS judges for that specific case. | |||
|
Member |
Man that is one more loooooong stretch to get to where you are speculating.... how many court cases make it to the Supreme Court? My Native American Name: "Runs with Scissors" | |||
|
Mistake Not... |
If a judge is an actual necessary witness for a trial, she's just that, a witness and with notice and a subpoena, can be called as a witness. If there are, say fifty other witnesses, the relevance of the judge as a witness may be lessened and the subpoena quashed that way if that's necessary. And if that judge, for whatever reason and at whatever level, is set to hear the case that they actually witnessed, she will recuse herself from the matter and a pro-tem judge will be appointed to take the case. Repeat for however many judges are at issue. ___________________________________________ Life Member NRA & Washington Arms Collectors Mistake not my current state of joshing gentle peevishness for the awesome and terrible majesty of the towering seas of ire that are themselves the milquetoast shallows fringing my vast oceans of wrath. Velocitas Incursio Vis - Gandhi | |||
|
| Member |
I suspect more likely that they would simply refuse to hear the case, as they can do now. I don’t know of any process in law or in the US Constitution that allows anyone to create temporary SCOTUS judges for any reason. | |||
|
| Drill Here, Drill Now |
Thanks all for indulging my weird thought. Glad to read the consensus is that they wouldn't be treated different than any other witness. Interesting. I had assumed that if there are 50 witnesses that a SCOTUS justice would be less likely to have the subpoena quashed since they would be viewed as the upper echelons of credibility. Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer. | |||
|
| Member |
The scenario in which this would need to be done is almost outside the realm of possibility. But it happens in other courts, state and federal, routinely. POTUS could appoint and Senate approve this under those powers. My guess it would fall on the DC Fed court for that one-off issue. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
Of course they could be subpoenaed, just like anyone else. And if the appeal got to the Supremes, they couldn't take part in the decision. But the chances of this scenario coming to pass are so low as to not be worth condisdering. It is precedent. "Precedence" is the state of being more important than something else. or higher in rank. A king has precedence over a viscount. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024