# Dissent in Garza v. Idaho (2019) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 13, 2024, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618 "2024-12-13T20:52:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/21 "2025-06-01T04:21:53Z")
Does the 6th Amendment extend the right to an attorney to filing appeals or merely the original criminal trial? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/22 "2025-06-01T04:37:05Z")
No idea. IANAUSL. However, as a matter of professional ethics, a lawyer doesn’t do anything to prejudice the client’s rights without clear instructions from the client. Filing a notice of appeal is a pretty straightforward procedural step that a lawyer can easily do, and not one that you normally leave for your client to do. And, it’s important to get it done before the deadline for the appeal notice runs out. I can see why the majority would conclude that refusing to take the client’s instructions on this point was ineffective counsel. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/23 "2025-06-01T05:23:41Z")
Oh, one other point. I can see why Thomas and Gorsuch are frustrated by the ever-expanding scope of “ineffective counsel”. However, I would say that’s an inevitable side-effect of the limited jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. If the judges think there’s been a miscarriage of justice in a state criminal case, their only way to fix it is by a constitutional ruling. A court with general appellate jurisdiction could deal with the matter as a question of professional legal standards of lawyers, and not have to reach for the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/24 "2025-06-01T17:26:07Z")
The Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t always have to reach for a Constitutional ruling. They can deal with ordinary laws as well. We just don’t hear as much about those decisions, because they generally don’t have nearly as far-reaching consequences as the constitutional rulings. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/25 "2025-06-01T18:14:45Z")
They can’t interpret state law, which is what governs most lawyers’ professional obligations, nor can they interpret the interplay between state criminal law and state legal profession law. If the state courts find no breach of state law, that binds the SCOTUS. It can only deal with federal law and federal constitutional law. SCOTUS isn’t a court of general appellate jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/26 "2025-06-01T18:23:47Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > If the state courts find no breach of state law, that binds the SCOTUS. It can only deal with federal law and federal constitutional law. I believe they can if the state law violates federal law re: the Supremacy Clause. In fact I believe that have done this many times. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/27 "2025-06-01T18:26:47Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I believe they can if the state law violates federal law Sure they can, but in criminal cases governed by state law, the only relevant federal law is often the Constitution. So there is no sub-constitutional federal statute that the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) could use to measure the state court’s judgment against. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/28 "2025-06-01T18:29:15Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > Sure they can, but in criminal cases governed by state law, the only relevant federal law is often the Constitution. Because Congress only has enumerated rights, theoretically EVERY federal law goes back to being based on the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/29 "2025-06-01T18:31:35Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I believe they can if the state law violates federal law Yes, but that’s not interpreting the state law. That’s measuring the state law against the federal constitution. If the issue, for example, is whether a refusal to file a notice of appeal is contrary to the state legal code governing a lawyer in a state criminal case, and the state courts find no breach of the state code of legal responsibility, that ruling on state law is final. SCOTUS can’t overturn it. But SCOTUS can then say, “Even though there was no breach of state law, we find that the lawyer’s actions in this case amounted to insufficient counsel, contrary to the US Constitution.” ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/30 "2025-06-01T19:29:52Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Because Congress only has enumerated rights, theoretically EVERY federal law goes back to being based on the Constitution. This is true but doesn’t contradict what I said. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/31 "2025-06-01T20:25:04Z")
Oh, sure, they have no jurisdiction in purely state matters (though of course, they’re also the ones who decide whether the matter is purely state). If they can’t find any relevant federal law, then they have nothing to say. But the federal law doesn’t necessarily need to be the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2025, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/32 "2025-06-01T20:35:56Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But the federal law doesn’t necessarily need to be the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause with emphasis added > This Constitution, **and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;** and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. However, I think this distinction of whether or not Federal law is or is not an extension of the Constitution is moot considering with all of the SCOTUS case law, Congress can (almost) always make a law about whatever they want … Federalism be damned. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2025, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/33 "2025-06-02T12:06:14Z")
But do laws say “this isn’t a crime”? Generally laws (including federal ones) say “if you do this, it’s a crime” and anything not listed is OK. So it’s difficult to find a situation where something is illegal by state law but a federal law says “you cannot be tried for this”? ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2025, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/34 "2025-06-02T12:47:01Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > So it’s difficult to find a situation where something is illegal by state law but a federal law says “you cannot be tried for this”? The Bill of Rights, as incorporated to the states, comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2025, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/35 "2025-06-02T15:50:43Z")
So basically, as previously mentioned, only the consitution? ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2025, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/36 "2025-06-02T16:46:56Z")
And the long established principle _Nullum crimen sine lege_: There can be no crime without a law. > **[nullum crimen sine lege](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nullum_crimen_sine_lege)** ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2025, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/37 "2025-06-02T17:38:48Z")
I doubt there are many cases where federal courts have held that a state court violated federal law by convicting a defendant of a non-existing criminal offence. Also, remember that for _nullum crimen sine lege_ purposes, the offence doesn’t necessarily have to be defined in statute; an established common law defence can also suffice, in those jurisdictions that haven’t abolished common law offences. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2025, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/38 "2025-06-03T01:03:41Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > So basically, as previously mentioned, only the consitution? 🤷 Not really germane to this thread and very much outside the realm of my expertise, but I feel like somewhere in constitutional law I learned about situations in which state and federal powers overlap and states were free to pass laws unless and until the federal government passed its own laws contradicting state law (something do do with creation of a regulatory scheme comes to mind). My first thought was it might be something to do with the dormant commerce clause, but I’m thinking I might be mistaken. But I am pretty sure there are actually some situations in which that is exactly what happens: a state passes a law in an area of overlapping powers to make something illegal, the federal government, operating under an enumerated power, then passes its own laws that preempts the state law, and the federal laws wins out thanks to the supremacy clause. So I guess it’s something to do with preemption. But, again, not really something I have worried about since the bar exam. ---
**Author:** ![KCB615](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea666f/32.png) [@KCB615](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KCB615)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2025, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/39 "2025-06-03T01:54:46Z")
For the last 250-odd years, Rhode Island had in their their state constitution (and I think their royal charter before that) that it is a right for someone to go to the ocean and take fish. As such, there were no licenses needed for saltwater fishing. Anyone was perfectly within their rights to cast a line into the ocean and catch a fish. There were size and bag limits, but you didn’t need a license. About 15 years ago, the federal government created a regulation that states were required to license and regulate saltwater fishing as part of a larger scheme to control the decline of fisheries. The RI General Assembly passed a bill to create this regulatory framework and fee structure in accordance with federal regulation. The governor vetoed that bill as it violated the state constitution. I’m pretty sure the legislature overode that veto and went with the unconstitutional statute anyway (after all, it is Rhode Island). It’s irked me for years that a federal regulation can overrule a state constitution. I get supremacy, but that just doesn’t seem correct to me. Not a perfect match to your case, but pretty close in my mind. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2025, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/40 "2025-06-03T02:05:26Z")
> [@KCB615](#): > > It’s irked me for years that a federal regulation can overrule a state constitution. I get supremacy, but that just doesn’t seem correct to me. > > Not a perfect match to your case, but pretty close in my mind. It makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise, states would just pass all laws by an amendment to their constitution. But it’s actually kind of the opposite. What we really need (and what may well exist) is an example of a state saying “Thou shalt not fish from our offshore waters” and the federal government coming in and saying “Thou shalt allow all comers to fish in offshore waters, so long as they have a federal license.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618.md?page=3)