Court Opinion

ID: 9447185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:28:05.388082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:55.927384
License: Public Domain

CHAMBEES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Let it be understood that the Supreme Court has not commanded us to direct the dismissal of the “juror interview” count. In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 636, 79 S. Ct. 1376, 3 L.Ed.2d 1473. If I were managing the charges, as someone must always do, I would say the count was a hare no longer worthy of pursuit. But that decision should be made in Hawaii.
Then the court awards costs in favor of Mrs. Sawyer. Against whom? The Supreme Court of Hawaii? The State of Hawaii? The Bar Association of Hawaii ? In Hawaii the proceedings were not entitled as “plaintiff versus defendant,” although an effort was made to do that when the case was here. We restored the correct title here and the United States Supreme Court used it. I cannot understand that the Bar Association was any party to the proceedings at all after the case passed into the control of the Supreme Court of Hawaii. We ought to leave the matter of costs alone.
It is true that the Supreme Court’s judgment did award costs to the appellant against the State (then Territory) of Hawaii and the Bar Association of Hawaii. This is over the signature of the Clerk of the Supreme Court. But that judgment does not command us to award costs. Our Rule 25, 28 U.S.C.A., exempts the United States from paying costs no matter how grievous the burden may have been against the other party. The Supreme Court’s Rule 57, 28 U.S. C.A., exempts the United States in the ordinary case. If those rules are based on sovereign immunity, I would grant the State of Hawaii the same immunity. And, as to the Bar Association of Hawaii, I would think the same policy reasons are present as apply in not assessing costs against the sovereign. Before it entertains a complaint against one of its members, must the Bar Association stop to consider if it can afford it?