Here are the particulars: Kevin Murphy was incarcerated (still is, I imagine) in the Montana State penitentiary for some crime that warranted high-security inmate status. Murphy was also a law clerk. Don't you just love the opportunities available to these guys? The fellow provided legal assistance to other inmates - not bad work, I guess, if you can get it.
Murphy learned that a 'former client,' Pat Tracy, had a problem. He had ben charged with assaulting Glen Galle, a correctional officer. Being the diligent law clerk that he was, this jail (pen)-house lawyer wanted to help Mr. Tracy. Another problem: Tracy was a maximum-security inmate, and prison rules prohibited high-security and maximum-security incarcerates from meeting.
But being the thorough jail (pen)-house lawyer that he was, Murphy 'investigated' Tracy's case. He spoke with numerous inmates who had complained about Glen Galle's 'shabby' conduct towards them. After the interviewing process, Murphy sent Tracy a letter, which basically read, "I want to help. Don't plead guilty. I know that Galle provoked you into doing what you did. Besides, we can get at least 100 witnesses to testify that Galle is overzealous and that he has a personal agenda to punish and harrass (sic) inmates..."
Murphy's letter concluded by stating, "another poiont (sic) is he grabbed you from behind. You tell your lawyer - presumably a licensed one - to get a hold of me on this. Don't take a plea- bargain unless it's for no more time." It's just doggone funny. I was truly too outdone.
But I digress. Prison officials intercepted the letter - certainly nothing unusual - and were none too pleased by its contents. Robert Shaw, who worked in maximum security, read Murphy's letter and wrote Murphy up for prison rules violations. A hearing was had and Murphy was found guilty of interference with due process hearings and insolence; or behaving badly. And Tracy, well he pleaded guilty to his wrongdoing - and never saw Murphy's letter.
Meanwhile, Murphy's convictions led him to file this action which opened the door to the nation's highest court. As part of a class action, and pursuant to Section 1983, a federal civil rights statute, Murphy claimed to have been "deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution..."
Interestingly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (those guys are pretty famous now) didn't address that claim. Instead, that court focused on Murphy's other complaint: that his First Amendment rights were abridged. How so, you ask? Murphy claimed that he had a protected First Amendment right to assist other inmates in their defense. The Ninth Circuit bought it, holding that Murphy "enjoyed this right because he was providing legal advice that potentially was relevant to Tracy's defense. Noble try, really. But the Supremes were in no mood for such bolstering.
Go To Page: 1 2
