Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille’s recent decision to use a concurring opinion in a death penalty case to lambaste death penalty counsel was inappropriate in place and tone, and left a disturbing impression about his priorities and perspective. His unduly harsh language reflected an intemperateness that was unbecoming of the court and its leader, and unfair to its intended targets. The chief justice raises serious issues worthy of serious public debate, but we wish he had chosen his words and his forum more carefully.
In Commonwealth v. Spotz , the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Mark Spotz’s collateral challenge to his murder conviction and death sentence under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. In a careful, 131-page, unanimous opinion, Justice Seamus McCaffery demonstrated the legal insufficiency of Spotz’s twenty-plus arguments. The chief justice nonetheless chose to write a separate concurrence in order to offer extensive criticism of what he perceives to be “contemptuous” tactics by Spotz’s counsel in both Spotz’s and numerous other death penalty cases. The chief justice accused counsel of being “obstructionist,” “obstreperous,” “abusive” and “unethical.” We are troubled by the chief justice’s choice of words, as well as his decision to tar the reputation of counsel without providing them any due process. We also are troubled by the effect of his words on the death penalty process, creating an appearance of non-neutrality. Appearances, even if inaccurate, can be difficult to undo.
