Supreme Court Just Gave Prosecutors a 'Powerful New Tool,' Gorsuch Says

An exterior view of the Supreme Court on June 20, 2024 in Washington, DC. On June 20, 2024, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissenting opinion to a case saying that the court gave prosecutors a "powerful new tool."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the court gave prosecutors a "powerful new tool" in a dissenting opinion issued on Thursday.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion in the Diaz v. United States case, in favor of affirming a conviction of Delilah Guadalupe Diaz, who was arrested and sentenced to seven years in prison after police found over 54 pounds of methamphetamine hidden in her car.

Diaz took the case all the way to the Supreme Court citing Rule 704(b), which prohibits expert witnesses from stating an opinion about whether the defendant had the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged.

In a dissenting opinion, Gorsuch wrote, "Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) prohibits an expert witness from offering an opinion "about whether the defendant did or did not have [the] mental state" needed to convict her of a crime...There's no Rule 704(b) problem, the Court holds, as long as the government's expert limits himself to testifying that most people like the defendant have the mental state required to secure a conviction."

"The upshot? The government comes away with a powerful new tool in its pocket. Prosecutors can now put an expert on the stand—someone who apparently has the convenient ability to read minds—and let him hold forth on what 'most' people like the defendant think when they commit a legally proscribed act," Gorsuch wrote.

"Persuaded that today's decision is mistaken, but hopeful that it will ultimately prove immaterial in practice, I respectfully dissent," Gorsuch added.

Gorsuch was joined by Supreme Court Justices Elana Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in his dissenting opinion.

In response to Diaz's arguments, prosecutors previously called Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Andrew Flood to testify in the case, who said that drug traffickers generally do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing couriers.

The majority held that Agent Flood's testimony did not violate Rule 704(b) because he did not explicitly state that Diaz knowingly transported the drugs. Instead, he testified that most drug couriers are aware they are carrying drugs, which does not necessarily describe Diaz's mental state.

In a post to X, formerly Twitter, Clark Neily, the senior VP of the Cato Institute, responded to the Supreme Court's opinion saying, "Majority: No error here because the govt's drug-mule expert didn't testify what was *actually* in John Doe's mind at the relevant time—instead, he testified as to what would most likely have been in the mind of the average *John Doe-like person* at that time."

"Gorsuch: Yeah, No," Neily wrote.

Newsweek reached out to the U.S. Supreme Court via email for comment.

Related Articles

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial