2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-10-2005 

# Mich a el v . H orn P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-9002

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Mich a el v . H orn" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 711. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/711NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 04- 9002

___________ HU BERT L. M I CH AEL,

A ppel l ant v. M A R T I N H O R N , C om m i s s i oner , Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C o rre c tio n s; * D A V ID D IG U G L IE L M O , S u p e rin ten d e n t o f th e S tate Corr e c t i o n a l I n s t i tu t i o n a tGr a t e r f o r d ; J OSEPH P. M AZU RK I EW I CZ, Super i nt endentof the St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atR ockvi ew ( *A m ended - See C l erk’ s O r derdat ed 1/ 6/ 05)

___________ ON A P P EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C i vi l N o. 96- cv- 01554) D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le T h o m a s I. V a n a sk ie

__________ B E FO R E : N Y G A A R D *, A M B R O , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed A ugus t10, 2005)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge In th e c u rren t con text, w e re lat e o n lya b ri ef su m m aryo f th is case ’s history . In * H onor abl e R i char d L . N y gaar d as s um ed s eni ors t atus on J ul y9, 2005.2

O ct ober1994, H ubertM i chae l pl eade d gui l tyt o the ki dnappi ng and s hoot i ng death of a s i xt een- y ear - ol d femal e and w as s ent ence d t o death bythe C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a. D ur i ng pr ocee di ngs ( both on di r ectappea l and on col l at er al r evi ew under the P enn sy l van i a P ost -C on vict i on R el i ef A ct ), M i chael express ed, atdiffer ent t i m es, ei thera des i r e t o chal l enge hi s death s ent ence oran unw i l l i ngnes s t o cont es tthat s e n te n c e . I n the cour s e of ha bea s pr ocee di ngs i n the D i s tr i ctC our t , M i chae l w r ot e t o the C our ti n J anuary2001 t o r eques tthatno fur therpr ocee di ngs occuri n hi s cas e. T he D istri ct C o u rto rde red a c o m p eten cyev alua ti o n fo r M icha el. F o ll o w ing an ev iden ti ary hear i ng and or al ar gum ent , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatM i chae l w as compet entand that he know i ngl y , r at i onal l y , and vol unt ar i l ym ade hi s choi ce t o w ai ve fe der al col l at er al r evi ew , or der ed thatthe C api t al H abea s C orpus U ni tof the D efe nderA s s oci at i on of Phi l adel phi a ( “D efe nderA s s oci at i on”) , and J os eph M . C os gr ove, E s q. , be di s m i s s ed as couns el , and gr ant ed M i chae l ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the ha bea s corpus p e titio n . Fol l ow i ng the entr yof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s M ar ch 10, 2004 or der , the D efe nder A s s oci at i on fi l ed a not i ce of appea l fr om thator dert o thi s C our t . Subse quent l y , M i chae l s ubm i t t ed a l ett eri ndi cat i ng thathe di d notw i s h the appe al t o pr ocee d, and the C om m onw eal th m oved fordi s m i s s al . O n M ay4, 2004, w e condi t i onal l ygr ant ed the C o m m o n w e a l th ’ s M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s . T h e e n try o f th e o r d e rw a s s u s p e n d e d f o rt e n d a ys t o aff or d M i chae l a fi nal oppor tuni tyt o i ndi cat e hi s des i r e t o pr ocee d w i th fede r al r evi ew o f h is c a se . M ich a e l f

iled a d o c u m e n t th e f

o llo w in g d a y , M a y5 , 2 0 0 4 , ind ica tin g h isU nder§ 848( q) ( 4) ( B , an i ndi vi dual s uch as M i chae l “s eeki ng t o vaca t e ors etas i de a 1 d e a th se n ten c e . . . [w h o is] f in a n c iallyu n a b le to o b tain a d e q u a te r e p re se n tatio n . . . sh a ll b e e n title d to th e a p p o in tm e n t o f o n e o r m o re a tto rn e y s . . . .” 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 8 (q )( 4 )( B ).

3 des i r e t o pr ocee d and hi s w i s h t o have ne w couns el appoi nt ed i n hi s appea l . W e then s c h e d u le d o ra l a rg u m e n t. A tor al ar gum ent , ther e w as s om e ques t i on r egar di ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s act i ons r e g a r d i n g th e a p p o i n t me n ta n d d i s mi s s a l o f c o u n s e l . F o l l o wi n g o r a l a r g u me n t , we g ran ted a ce rt ifi ca te of

ap p ea labili tyo n the q u esti o n o f “ w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt vi ol at ed 21 U . S. C . § 848( q) ( 4) ( B ) i n di s m i s s i ng couns el forH ubertM i chae l and, i f the D is tr ic t C o u rt s o e rr e d , w h e th e r t h is e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s .” 1 O n N ovember26, 2004, the C l erk’ s O ffi ce r ece i ved a l ett erfr om M i chae l thatw as c o n s tru e d a s a M o t i o n t o Wi th d r a w Ap p e a l a n d t o d i s mi s s Co s g r o v e a s h i s c o u n s e l . On D ece m ber3, 2004, the pane l ent er ed an or derdi r ect i ng couns el foral l part i es t o fi l e a r es pons e t o the pro se m ot i on. I n r es pons e, C os gr ove i ndi cat ed thatM i chae l w as

“ a n yth in g b u t s te a d f

a s t in h is d e s ir e to te rm in a te th is a p p e a l o r m yre p re s e n ta tio n o f h im .” On J a n u a r y5 , 2 0 0 5 , i n y e ta n o th e ra t t e mp tt o a s c e r t a i n M i c h a e l ’ s p o s i t i o n , we enter ed an order that w arned M i chael as fol l ow s: If y o u d ism iss th is a p p e a l y o u w ill w a iv e a ll fu rth e r rig h t to p u rsu e th is appea l . A s a r es ul ty ou m ayal s o be deni ed anyfur therr evi ew of y our convi ct i on and s ent ence bythi s oranyothercourt . A ddi t i onal l y , i n the futur e, y ou m aybe l egal l ypr ohi bi t ed fr om fi l i ng a new habea s pet i t i on or otherpet i t i on forr evi ew . I n s hor t , y ourdi s m i s s al of thi s appea l m ay t erm i nat e anyfur therj udi ci al r evi ew of y ourconvi ct i on and s ent ence . (E m p h a s is in o ri g in a l.)4

O n February22, 2005, M i chae l s enta l ett ert o the C l erk’ s O ffi ce i ndi cat i ng thathe had r ead the C our t ’ s or derof J anuary5, 2005, and thathe ful l yunder s t ood the c o n se q u e n c e s o f

h is w a iv e r. M o re o v e r, M ich a e l in d ica ted th a t h e h a d c o n su lted w ith couns el and thathe nonethel es s w i s hed t o w i thdr aw hi s appea l . T he fol l ow i ng day , aft er a m ee ti n g w ith C o sg rov e, a req u est w as f il ed to d ef

er a n yco n side rati o n o f th is l ett er f o r a per i od of tw o w eeks s o t hatM i chae l coul d fur thercons ul tw i th couns el . W e def err ed our deci s i on i n t he appe al t o perm i tcouns el t i m e t o m eetonce a gai n w i th M i chae l . O n M ar ch 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , C o sg ro v e su b m itt e d a d o c u m e n t en tit led “ R e p o rt o f C o u n se l” in d ica tin g th a t a l i t i gat i on pl an w as underdevel opm entforM i chae l and as ki ng us t o pr ocee d w i th a r es ol ut i on of the ques t i on pr es ent ed i n the C ert i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i ty . H ow ever , t en d a y s la te r, M ic h a e l f

ile d a n o th e r d o c u m e n t in d ic a tin g h is d e s ir e to d is m is s h is a p p e a l. A ddi t i onal l y , on M ay23, 2005, M i chae l fi l ed a s t at ementw i th the C our ti n w hi ch he a g a in a s k e d f

o r d is m is s a l o f

h is a p p e a l. O n Ju n e 2 , 2 0 0 5 , w e issu ed the f o ll o w ing o rde r: In a sm u c h a s th e p e tit io n e r is re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l, th e p ro se lette rs to w i thdr aw the appe al ar e deni ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derent er ed M ar ch 10, 2004, i s vaca t ed t o t he ext entthati tdi s m i s s ed J os eph M . C os gr ove, E s q. , as couns el , gr ant ed M i chae l ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on and vac at ed the s t ayof exe cut i on. T he mat t eri s r emanded for f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s to d e te rm in e w h e th e r h a b e a s c o rp u s re lie f is w a rr a n te d . W e e x p ress n o o p inion o n su ch q u esti o n s as w h ethe r M icha el’s claim s are exhaus t ed, pr ocedur al l ybarr ed orm er i t or i ous . I n the eve ntthatM i chae l fi l es anyfur therpr o s e mot i ons t o di s m i s s hi s pet i t i on, w e ur ge the D i s tr i ct C o u rt to d e n yth e m s u m m a ri ly. See Sm i th v. A r m ontr out , 865 F. 2d 1515T he di s s entr ead: 2 J udge G r eenbe r g w oul d di s m i s s thi s appea l . H e poi nt s outthatthe di s tr i ct c o u rt f o u n d a p p e llan t co m p e ten t an d th a t th e a p p e llan t h a s m a d e h is pos i t i on w i th r es pectt o di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l abs ol ut el ycl ear . O n M ay25, 2005, appel l antfi l ed a s t at ementw i th thi s courtdat ed M ay23, 2005, thathe i ndi cat ed w as “r egar di ng: s ent ence of dea th” i n w hi ch he s t at ed hi s pos i t i on as fol l ow s : “I as k t hi s courtt o di s m i s s anyappea l ( s ) pr es ent l ybei ng ar gued befor e thi s court . I have ha d ampl e t i m e t o di s cus s al l the pos s i bi l i t i es , and pr obabi l i t i es , w i th m yatt orney , J os eph C os gr ove. I am sat i s fi ed w i th the se n ten c e im p o se d u p o n m e .” In Ju d g e G re e n b e rg ’s v iew , the c o u rt sh o u ld h o n o r a p p e lla n t’ s p o s itio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. H

am m er , 226 F. 3d 229 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). A s the pane l di s pos ed of the ca s e byor derand notopi ni on, a form al m andat e di d not 3 i ssue. B ecause thi s di st i ncti on i s w i tho ut s ub st anti ve ef fect , w e refert o the order as a m a n d a te . 5 (8 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); St . P i er r e v. C ow an , 2 1 7 F . 3 d 9 3 9 , 9 4 9 -50 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 2 A ppel l ees M art i n H orn e t a l. fi l ed a pe t i t i on forpanel r ehea r i ng orr ehea r i ng e n b a n c . An or derdeny i ng the pet i t i on w as fi l ed on J ul y7, 2005, overJ udge G r eenbe r g’ s di s s ent , and th e m a n d a te is s u e d o n J u ly 8 , 2 0 0 5 .

3 W e h a v e th e i n h e r e n tp o we rt o r e c a l l a ma n d a t e s u b j e c tt o r e v i e w b yth e S u p r e me C o u rtfo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n , tho u g h that p o w er sh o u ld b e e x erc ised o n lyin ex tr ao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s . C alder on v. Thom ps on , 5 2 3 U .S . 5 3 8 , 5 5 0 (1 9 9 8 ); s ee al s o B el lv. T h o m p s o n , 125 S. C t . 2825, ___ ( 2005) . I n expl ai ni ng thatr eca l l m aybe w arr ant ed for good caus e, t o pr eventi nj us t i ce, ori n s peci al ci r cumst ance s , w e have i dent i fi ed fi ve s i tuat i ons w hi ch w oul d j us t i fyr eca l l i ng the mandat e: 1) w her e cl ar i fi cat i on of the m andat e and opi ni on i s cr i t i cal ; 2) w her e mi s conducthas aff ect ed the i nt egr i tyof the j udi ci al pr oces s ; 3) w her e ther e i s a dange rof i ncongruentr es ul t s i n cas es pendi ng att he6

sam e ti m e; 4) w h ere itis ne ce ssaryto rev ise an “u n inten d ed ” ins tru cti o n to a tri al co u rt thathas pr oduced a n unj us tr es ul t ; and 5) w her e a s ubs equentSupr eme C our tdeci s i on s h o w e d th a t th e o ri g in a l ju d g m e n t w a s d e m o n s tr a b ly w ro n g . A m . I r on & Steel

I ns t . v. EPA , 5 6 0 F .2 d 5 8 9 , 5 9 3 -9 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). H er e, cl ar i fi cat i on of the C our t ’ s deci s i on i s cr i t i cal fortw o r eas ons . Fi r s t , the or derl eave s the D i s tr i ctC our tw i th l i t t l e gui dance i n thi s compl i cat ed ca s e as t o our r eas ons forr emandi ng the ca s e forfur therpr ocee di ngs and, i ndeed, does noti dent i fy w h a t e rr o r ( if

a n y ) t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o m m itte d in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e d e c is io n a p p e a le d . Second, thi s cas e pr es ent s s i gni fi canti s s ues conce rni ng a dea th r ow i nm at e w ho has gi ven di ffe r enti ndi cat i ons abouthi s des i r e t o have a chal l enge t o hi s s ent ence hear d. W e have g ra p p le d w ith th e s e is s u e s b e f o re . See H

am m er , 2 2 6 F .3 d a t 2 3 1 -3 7 ; U ni t ed Stat es v. H am m er , 239 F. 3d 302, 302- 07 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( N y gaar d, J . , di s s ent i ng fr om deni al of r ehea r i ng en banc ) . T hes e i s s ues have pr oven t o be r ecurr i ng, and i n or dert o i s s ue an opi ni on t o pr ovi de cl ar i fi cat i on forfutur e ca s es ( and t o r evi s i tm att er s pert ai ni ng t o the J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 5 o rd e r) , it is n e c e s s a ry to re c a ll th e m a n d a te . W e a re m in d f

u l th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s in d ica ted th a t “th e p ro m p tn e ss w ith w hi ch a c our tact s t o corr ecti t s m i s t akes i s evi dence of the ade quacyof i t s gr ounds for r eopeni ng. ” C alder on , 523 U . S. at553. A ccor di ngl y , w e ar e ende avor i ng t o act pr om pt l yi n r eca l l i ng ourm andat e. Fur ther , the Supr eme C our thas caut i oned that“the St at e’ s i nt er es t s i n fi nal i tyar e al l butpar amount , w i thoutr egar d t o . . . [the gr ounds on w hi ch a] courtof appe al s pr edi cat es the r eca l l . . . . ” Id . at558. H er e, unl i ke theO r al ar gum entw i l l be s chedul ed s o thatthe part i es can a ddr es s the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) 4 w hetherM i chae l ’ s appea l s houl d be di s m i s s ed i n l i ghtof hi s fi l i ngs i ndi cat i ng he does not wi s h th e a p p e a l t o p r o c e e d ; a n d ( 2 ) wh e th e rth e Di s tr i c tCo u r tv i o l a t e d 2 1 U. S . C. § 848( q) ( 4) ( B ) i n di s m i s s i ng couns el forM i chae l and, i f the D i s tr i ctC our ts o err ed, w h e th e r t h is e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s . 7 s i tuat i on addr es s ed i n C alder on , w e w oul d notbe di s rupt i ng the fi nal i tyof the p ro c e e d in g s b u t r a th e r c la ri f y in g th e is s u e s p re s e n te d in th e litig a tio n . Forthes e r eas ons , r eca l l of ourm andat e i s w arr ant ed. Fur ther , ( i ) w e vac at e our or derof J ul y7, 2005, t o t he ext enti tdeni ed pane l r ehea r i ng, ( i i ) gr antA ppel l ees ’ pet i t i on forpanel r ehea r i ng, and ( i i i ) vaca t e ouror derof J une 2, 2005. 4 A n ap propri at e order fol l ow s. G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge, concurr i ng I concurw i th and j oi n i n J udge A m br o’ s opi ni on t o the ext entthati tw i thdr aw s t he m andat e and i n part i cul arconcurw i th and j oi n i n footnot e 3 s peci fy i ng the purpos e of a n or al ar gum enti n thi s cas e. I al s o concurw i th and j oi n i n the or deracc om pany i ng the o p in io n . I d o n o t co n c u r w ith a n d jo in in th e p o rtio n o f h is o p in io n in d ica tin g th a t “th is cas e pr es ent s s i gni fi canti s s ues conce rni ng a dea th r ow i nm at e w ho has gi ven di ffe r ent i ndi cat i ons abouthi s des i r e t o have a chal l enge t o hi s s ent ence hear d. ” To t he ext entt hat thi s por t i on of the opi ni on r efe r s t o the pr ocee di ngs i n the di s tr i ctcourt , i ti s bey ond t he s c o p e o f o u rc e r t i f

i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i ty . Of

c o u r s e , myr e s e r v a t i o n d o e s n o tp r e c l u d e me fr om j oi ni ng i n t he or derbei ng ent er ed.8

N Y G A A R D , di s s ent i ng. T he ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed bythi s cas e do notr i s e t o the “e xtr aor di nary ” l evel cont empl at ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n C alder on v. Thom ps on , 523 U . S. 538 ( 1998) (ho lding that co u rt s o f a p p ea l m ayrec all their m an d ate o n lyin ex tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s ) . A s J udge A m br o poi nt s out , w e mayr eca l l ourm andat e w hen c la ri f ic a tio n is c ri tic a l. S e e Amer . I r o n & S t e e lv . EPA , 5 6 0 F . 2 d 5 8 9 , 5 9 3 - 95 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). H e re , c la ri f

ic a tio n is u n n e c e s s a ry; th e m a n d a te w e a re re c a llin g is u n a m b ig u o u s . In re a d in g o u r Ju n e 2 , 2 0 0 5 o rd e r, th e D istric t C o u rt w o u ld k n o w p re c ise lyw h a t ste p s to tak e to c o n c lu d e th is liti g a tio n . T h e o rd e r re m a n d e d th is c a se to th e D istric t C o u rt to cons i ders peci fi cal l yw hetherhabea s corpus r el i ef on the mer i t s w as w arr ant ed. R el y i ng o n ap p li ca b le ca se law , w e f u rth er instruc ted th e D istri ct C o u rth o w to reso lve f u ture c o n f lic ts b e tw e e n M ic h a e l a n d h is c o u n s e l. See St . P i er r e v. C ow an , 2 1 7 F . 3 d 9 3 9 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); Sm i th v. A r m ontr out , 865 F. 2d 1515 ( 8 C i r . 1989) . T hus , fur thercl ar i fi cat i on th o f o u rm a n d a t e i s n o tn e c e s s a r y. T h e m a jo ri ty p o s its tw o re a s o n s w h yc la ri f ic a tio n o f

o u r m a n d a te is n e c e s s a ry. F irst, ith e ld th a t o u r o rd e r p ro v id e s s c a n t g u id a n c e to th e D istric t C o u rt in th is c o m p lica ted c a se . A s e x p lain e d , I d o n o t b e liev e th is is th e c a se . S e c o n d , the M a jo rity m ai nt ai ns thi s cas e pr es ent s “s i gni fi canti s s ues ” conc erni ng death- r ow i nm at es w ho v a c illa te b e tw e e n p u rs in g th e ira p p e a ls a n d w ith d ra w in g f ro m f u rt h e r f e d e ra l liti g a tio n . W h ile I a g re e su c h situ a tio n s p re se n t im p o rta n t issu e s th a t sh o u ld b e a d d re ss e d , tha t th is iss u e re m a in s u n a d d re ss e d is irre lev a n t to th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r o u r m a n d a te is in9

cri t i cal need of clar i fi cat i on . T he p urpose o f cl ari fi cat i on i s t o eluci date an otherw i se u n in tellig ib le o r a m b ig u o u s o rd e r, n o t to g iv e a p a n e l o f th is C o u rt a n o p p o rtu n ityto addr es s i s s ues anew , how evers i gni fi cantthos e i s s ues m aybe. B oth of the r eas ons pr offe r ed bythe maj or i tyher e mi s cons true the purpos e of c l ar i fi cat i on. M or eover , even w e re I to c o n c e d e th a t o u r o rd e r is a m b ig u o u s a n d re q u ire s f u rth e r c lar if

ica tio n , w e c o u ld s i m pl ys uppl ementouror derw i th an opi ni on, ther ebyavoi di ng the dr as t i c ac t i on of r eca l l i ng ourm andat e. M o re tro u b lin g th a n th e m a jo rity ’s m isa p p re h e n sio n o f p re c e d e n t, ho w e v e r, is its appar entw i l l i ngnes s t o di s r egar d ouri ns t i tut i onal rul es and pr ocedur es i n or dert o aff ect the out come of t hi s l i t i gat i on. I nt ernal O per at i ng Pr ocedur e 9. 5. 2 pr ovi des a t en day p e rio d o f re v iew f o r p e tit io n s f

o r re h e a rin g e n b a n c . T h e C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia fi l ed s uch a pe t i t i on on J une 16, 2005. Pur s uantt o I . O . P. 9. 5. 2, a copyof the pet i t i on w as tr ans m i t t ed byourC l erk’ s offi ce t o al l act i ve j udges of thi s court , as w el l as t o J udge G r eenbe r g, w ho s aton t he or i gi nal panel . I tw as atthi s poi ntthatthe t en daycl ock bega n t o run. N otonl ydi d no m emberof thi s C our tvot e forr ehea r i ng dur i ng thi s t i m e per i od, no j udge eve n s oughtan ans w ert o the pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng. See I . O . P. 9. 5. 2. O nce the t en dayper i od expi r ed, an or derw as pr epar ed deny i ng r ehea r i ng en banc . T hi s O r derw as noti m m edi at el yfi l ed s o t hatJ udge G r eenbe r g coul d pr epar e an opi ni on s urdeni al of re h e a rin g , w h ich w a s a p p e n d e d to a n d p u b lish e d w ith th e o rd e r d e n y in g re h e a rin g o n Ju ly 7, 2005. T her efor e, acc or di ng t o ourow n rul es , w e oughtnotgr antr ehea r i ng. I n our j ur i s prudent i al s y s t em, the rul es m us tbe fol l ow ed i n everycas e. D ue pr oces s r equi r es as10

m u c h . Y e t to d a y , w e b ru sh a sid e o u r e sta b lish e d ru les b e c a u se a ju d g e w h o se o p in io n d id n o t g a rn e r m a

jo ritysu p p o rt, eith e r o n th e m e rits o r o n p e tit io n f o r re h e a rin g , fe e ls part i cul ar l ydi s tr es s ed abouta r es ul the coul d notal t er . W e oughtr emi nd our s el ves of the w el l -know n ax i om that " t o p erform i t s hi gh fun ct i on i n the bestw ay [, ] ' j ust i ce m ust sat i sfythe ap pearance o f j ust i ce. ' " I n r e Mur chis on , 3 4 9 U . S . 1 3 3 , 1 3 6 , (19 5 5 ) ( quot i ng O f f utt v. U nited S tates 348 U . S. 11, 14, ( 1954) ) . I fi nd i tdi ffi cul tt o r econc i l e thi s t i m et e s ta x i o m w i th w h a th a p p e n e d i n th i s c a s e . I f e a rth e m a

j o r i ty’ s a c t i o n s t o d a y u n d e rm in e s re sp e c t f

o r n o tio n s o f

f u n d a m e n tal f

a irn e ss . I d iss e n t.