Un juge en exercice vient d'émettre la critique la plus cinglante de ce mandat de la Cour suprême

A sitting judge has issued one of the most blistering critiques of the current Supreme Court term, calling it a systematic attack on democratic institutions and constitutional rights. Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins delivered a scathing opinion in Granillo v. Hawaii, condemning the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to due process and its impact on state-level constitutional governance. His remarks come amid growing concern over the ideological shift within the nation's highest court, particularly under the influence of a Republican-appointed supermajority. The decision in Granillo v. Hawaii centers on a 1990 sexual assault conviction against Daniel Granillo, whose case relied heavily on outdated forensic evidence. Prosecutors used FBI hair-and-fiber analysis during his trial, a technique later deemed scientifically unreliable. In 2017, the Department of Justice informed Hawaiʻi that the expert involved in Granillo’s case had exaggerated the reliability of the method. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court ultimately overturned Granillo’s conviction, though the justices were divided on how to handle the issue of discredited forensic testimony. In his majority opinion, Eddins rejected the application of a federal standard that requires prosecutors to demonstrate actual knowledge of false testimony before a conviction can be overturned. Instead, he argued that the Hawaiʻi Constitution prioritizes fairness in trials over prosecutorial intent. “What matters is whether the trial was fair,” he wrote, “not whether the prosecutor knew it wasn’t.” Under his interpretation, a defendant must only show a “reasonable possibility” that the discredited forensic evidence influenced the jury’s decision. This approach aligns with a broader trend of expanding protections for criminal defendants, particularly in cases involving flawed scientific evidence. Two concurring justices, however, advocated for a different standard, harmless-error review, which would allow the conviction to stand unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the discredited testimony did not affect the outcome. Eddins criticized this view as an attempt to impose the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal due process onto the Hawaiʻi Constitution. He argued that such an approach undermines the sovereignty of state constitutions and reflects a dangerous deference to the federal judiciary. Eddins' critique extends well beyond the specifics of the Granillo case. He accused the U.S. Supreme Court of systematically dismantling democratic safeguards and trampling on constitutional liberties. “A Supreme Court that systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity,” he wrote, “does not chart the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution.” His comments reflect a deepening frustration among state judges who feel constrained by the increasingly ideologically driven rulings of the national court. This is not the first time Eddins has spoken out against the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the past several years, he has consistently challenged the court’s reliance on originalist interpretations of the Constitution, arguing that such methods often serve political agendas rather than uphold the rule of law. His willingness to voice these concerns in public stands in contrast to many of his peers, who remain largely silent despite the growing controversy surrounding the court’s decisions. Legal experts and civil libertarians have noted that Eddins’ critique resonates with a growing body of concern over the erosion of judicial independence and the increasing politicization of the courts. While some argue that the U.S. Supreme Court is merely reflecting the will of the electorate, others warn that the court’s recent rulings risk undermining the foundational principles of American democracy. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the voices of state judges like Eddins may become increasingly vital in shaping the future of constitutional governance.