ProPublica’s investigative report examines extramural relationships of Samuel Alito and their potential impact on Supreme Court ruling.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: President Biden Attends A Campaign Fundraiser In Los Gatos
Alito was made aware of the ProPublica report before it was published and pre-emptively attacked it in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, in which, among other protests, Alito denies having been served wine that costs $1,000 a bottle during a fishing trip to Alaska allegedly paid for by a wealthy acquaintance.
Alito pushed his rebuttal — or pre-buttal — into the public sphere before the accusations in the ProPublica piece landed, perhaps with the intent to avoid the clamor that followed the revelations about conservative billionaire Harlan Crow‘s generous gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas over the years.
California Congressman Ted Lieu explained why Samuel Alito responded so publicly to the as-yet-unpublished scrutiny of his actions. Lieu, a Georgetown-trained lawyer, accuses Alito of possessing a “consciousness of guilt.”
The phrase “consciousness of guilt” is not a Lieu coinage but a legal term with a specific legal definition.
Consciousness of Guilt: “Evidence of post-crime conduct that may in the context of a particular case, evince a defendant’s consciousness of guilt of the offense with which the defendant is charged is admissible. For example, a consciousness of guilt may be evinced by a false alibi or explanation for one’s actions, intimidation of a witness, destruction or concealment of Evidence or flight.”
NOTE: The increased scrutiny of the Supreme Court over potential ethical compromises in the wake of reports about Crow’s gifts to Thomas has spotlighted the Court’s reputation for apolitical independence.
The Crow-Thomas revelations have captured not only media attention but also the attention of Congress, with numerous Representatives calling for Thomas to face the consequences and for procedural changes for SCOTUS.
