02 September 2004

Court Refuses

The Montana Supreme Court decided it did not have jurisdiction to order an investigation of the cases of a former director of the Montana State Crime Lab despite evidence that he had acted to convict innocent people.


Mark said...

Just from reading the news story and not the whole opinion, it would seem that the MN court is correct. From a Constitutional standpoint, the court needs a case or controversy before it. Re-examining evidence enmass seems more like an executive function. If the court were asked to review evidence in a particular case that is seeking a new trial, then I think that falls within their jurisdiction.

Ken Lammers said...

I agree that it is an executive function. Therefore, I think this must have been a petition for a writ of mandamus. However, I've looked on the Montana Supreme Court's website and cannot find anything that proves or disproves that.