A Writ of HABEAS CORPUS! The SCOTUS In-Justice System of America...

Challenging Testimony

Ms. Diaz brought up a federal rule known as Rule 704(b) that states expert witnesses “must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.” But a district judge ruled that Mr. Flood could tell jurors about whether couriers generally knew they were transporting drugs. At trial, he testified to that effect. The jury found Ms. Diaz guilty.Ms. Diaz appealed, but a federal appeals court also rejected her arguments against the testimony.Story continues below advertisementLawyers for Ms. Diaz had written in a filing to the Supreme Court that the plain text of the rule “forecloses limiting its reach to an ‘explicit opinion’ regarding the defendant’s knowledge.” Generalizing about most drug carriers was an improper workaround of the rule, they said.“This is true of many generalizations about a class of individuals,” they wrote. 

Play Video.

What You Should Know about Habeas Corpus...

What is Habeas Corpus?
The “Great Writ” of habeas corpus is a fundamental right in the Constitution that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. Translated from Latin it means “show me the body.” Habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary executive power.Why Did Congress Pass the Military Commissions Act?
In June 2006, the Supreme Court found in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that military commissions at Guantanamo created by President Bush were invalid. The court said that the rules violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of detainees being held indefinitely.After the decision, President Bush asked Congress to pass legislation that would make the military commission trials legal and strip detainees of their due process habeas rights — which they did by passing the Military Commissions Act right before November 2006 elections.

How Does the Military Commissions Act Take Away Habeas Rights?
Section 6 of Military Commissions Act strips any non-citizen, declared an “enemy combatant” by any president, of the right to be heard in court to establish his or her innocence, regardless of how long he or she is held without charge. This habeas-stripping provision applies to the detainees held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. It violates the Constitution and basic American values.Is it Constitutional to Strip a Person of Their Habeas Rights?
No, Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Several cases challenging the law are already working their way through the courts.The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws…are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any [the Constitution] contains.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 84What Can I Do?
Two bills have been introduced in Congress that would restore habeas corpus rights — the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 (H.R. 1415, S. 576) and the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act (H.R. 1416, S. 185). Help us: Urge members of Congress to cosponsor and support this vital legislation and spread the word in your community:

• Come to DC in June! The ACLU is hosting a week of action, to demand that Congress defend the Constitution and protect what makes us Americans by restoring due process and habeas corpus. The more people we have in DC, the louder our voice will be! Look for more details at www.aclu.org
• Write a letter to the editor about the elimination of Habeas Corpus and the other problems in the Military Commissions Act. Get the word out through newspapers, newsletters, blogs, personal websites, academic publications and more.
• Take Action through ACLU Action Alerts. Join the ACLU Action Network to find out important ways that you can take action to help restore the Constitution. You’ll keep up to date on all the latest news and information as well as other exciting opportunities to take action and restore our Constitution such as national conference calls, town halls, and web-chats. Sign up now >>
• Host a House Party and invite all your closest friends. Rent the movie “Road to Guantanamo” or a similar show, start the conversation and encourage your friends to do their part to restore the Constitution. For background on the issues, go to /habeas
• Keep the discussion going! Talk to your friends, neighbors, family and others in your community about the problems in the Military Commissions Act and let them know they can act to restore the Constitution. Forward ACLU Action Alerts to your friends, family, colleagues and neighbors. Communicate with your local community, religious and other leaders to request that they sign up for ACLU Action Alerts and take action.

“Say a patient asks his therapist whether he is depressed and she responds, ‘People do not usually have trouble getting out of bed in the morning unless they are depressed.’ She has clearly expressed an ‘opinion about’ her patient’s mental state. Likewise for a high-school teacher who, when asked whether one of her students knew that he was not supposed to get outside help on a take-home exam, responds, ‘High-school seniors generally know the honor code.’”In the Supreme Court ruling siding against Ms. Diaz, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “because the expert witness did not state an opinion about whether petitioner herself had a particular mental state, we conclude that the testimony did not violate Rule 704(b).”“Agent Flood instead testified about the knowledge of most drug couriers,” he added later. “Specifically, he explained that ‘in most circumstances, the driver knows they are hired ... to take the drugs from point A to point B.’ That opinion does not necessarily describe Diaz’s mental state. After all, Diaz may or may not be like most drug couriers.”

Defense Arguments

Defense lawyers, during cross-examination of the agent, also established that Mr. Flood was not involved in Ms. Diaz’s case and that there had been cases before involving people carrying drugs without their knowledge.Story continues below advertisement“The jury was thus well aware that unknowing couriers exist and that there was evidence to suggest Diaz could be one of them. It simply concluded that the evidence as a whole pointed to a different conclusion: that Diaz knowingly transported the drugs. The jury alone drew that conclusion,” Justice Thomas said.Justice Thomas was joined by Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.Justice Neil Gorsuch said in a dissent that the majority was “carv[ing] a new path” around the federal rule.The ruling means “prosecutors can now put an expert on the stand—someone who apparently has the convenient ability to read minds—and let him hold forth on what ’most‘ people like the defendant think when they commit a legally proscribed act,” he wrote. “Then, the government need do no more than urge the jury to find that the defendant is like ’most’ people and convict. What authority exists for allowing that kind of charade in federal criminal trials is anybody’s guess, but certainly it cannot be found in Rule 704.”Justice Gorsuch was joined his dissent by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.