Russell A. Suzuki, et al. v. Christopher Deedy

This case presents two straightforward questions: 1) the limits the Constitution and Congress impose on the jurisdiction of lower federal courts; and 2) the state of Hawai‘i’s sovereign right to enforce its criminal laws. [1] 28 U.S.C. § 1257, “as long interpreted”, by the Court, “vests authority to review a state court’s judgment solely in this Court”. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1526 (2005). The “paradigm situation” in which a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to proceed are “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Id. at 284, 293, 125 S.Ct. at 1521–22, 1527. The first question presented: Did the Ninth Circuit err in affirming the district court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction to adjudicate a case brought by a statecourt loser complaining of injuries caused by the judgment rendered by the state’s highest court before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting the court to review and reject that judgment? [2] A long line of decisions of the Court leaves no doubt that “an acquittal . . . encompass[es] any ruling that the prosecution’s proof is insufficient to establish criminal liability for an offense.” Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313, 318, 133 S.Ct. 1069, 1074–75 (2013) (external citations omitted). The second question presented: Did the Ninth Circuit err in concluding that the state trial court’s