The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the petition of James Skinner, a man convicted of the 1998 murder of Eric Walber, even though the justices vacated the conviction and death sentence of Skinner's co-defendant, Michael Wearry, back in 2016.

Both men were tried on the same evidence. Both relied on the same two eyewitness accounts. One walks free. The other remains incarcerated.

According to Courthouse News, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the denial of certiorari. The Barack Obama appointee did not mince words:

"Equal justice under law, the phrase engraved on the front of this court's building, requires that two co-defendants, convicted of the same crime, who raised essentially the same constitutional claims, receive the same answer from the courts."

They didn't get the same answer. And the Court chose not to explain why.

Same case, same evidence, opposite outcomes

Skinner and Wearry were both tried over the 1998 murder of Eric Walber. Prosecutors relied on the same two eyewitness accounts to convict both men. In 2016, the Supreme Court found that prosecutors had suppressed evidence undermining those very witnesses, and it vacated Wearry's conviction and death sentence. Wearry was freed.

Skinner raised essentially the same constitutional claims. Louisiana courts refused to apply the high court's findings to his case.

Sotomayor called it "illogical" to deny Skinner's claims when the Court had already determined that prosecutors had "beyond doubt" violated their constitutional obligations for his co-defendant. She laid out the stakes plainly:

"Because Skinner was subject to the same constitutional violations that Wearry was (and more), he is entitled to the same relief that Wearry received. The Louisiana courts denied him that relief."

The evidence prosecutors buried

The dissent catalogued a striking pattern of suppressed, undisclosed, and withheld evidence, all of which undermined the prosecution's case against both defendants.

One witness, Sam Scott, gave investigators many significantly different accounts of Walber's murder. Suppressed evidence indicated Scott was testifying "to settle a personal score" against Wearry. Scott's account claimed Randy Hutchinson hauled Walber in and out of a vehicle and beat him, but medical records revealed Hutchinson had just undergone major knee surgery, casting serious doubt on whether Scott's story was physically possible.

Eric Brown was the only other eyewitness. Undisclosed evidence showed Brown was motivated by the "possibility of a reduced sentence on an existing conviction." Additional withheld evidence suggested Brown had:

• Admitted to fellow prisoners that he participated in a carjacking that led to Walber's death
• Wanted to pin the crime on Wearry
• Identified another man as Walber's killer in a photo array

Evidence that contradicted trial assertions that Brown sought no favors from prosecutors was never disclosed. Meanwhile, one possible suspect had repeatedly confessed, according to three independent sources. Another man was prosecuted for a similar carjacking one month later.

The Court found all of this compelling enough to free Wearry. It was not, apparently, compelling enough to even hear Skinner's case.

When precedent applies selectively

There is a legitimate conservative principle at work here that has nothing to do with being soft on crime: the state should not be able to win convictions by hiding evidence, then selectively decide which defendants benefit when the misconduct is exposed. Prosecutorial misconduct is not a technicality. It is the government using its power to put people in cages while concealing facts that might prevent exactly that outcome.

Sotomayor also noted that Skinner's conviction rested on a non-unanimous jury verdict, which would be unconstitutional under modern precedent set in 2020. That issue alone could warrant a second look. Combined with the Brady violations the Court already identified in the companion case, the argument for review was substantial.

Yet the Court declined without explanation. Only two justices objected. "Rather than leaving that injustice in place, the court should have granted certiorari to uphold its obligations to ensure the supremacy of its own decisions and to treat like defendants alike."

Conservatives who rightly distrust government overreach should find this troubling. The principle that prosecutors must play by the rules is not a liberal cause. It is a constitutional one. When the state suppresses exculpatory evidence, secures a conviction, and then fights to keep a man locked up even after the Court exposes the misconduct in a co-defendant's identical case, that is not justice. It is institutional stubbornness.

The other case the Court did take

The Supreme Court granted only one petition for review Monday, agreeing to decide whether defendants can circumvent the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case involves Jasmine Younge, who filed a pregnancy discrimination claim against the Fulton County District Attorney's Office in Atlanta. A judge determined she was excluded from pursuing the claim because her job duties made her a member of the personal staff of an elected official. Younge argues the 11th Circuit erred by allowing Fulton County to assert this unpled affirmative defense in a summary judgment motion filed almost exactly a year after an expired scheduling order deadline.

The procedural question matters, but it lacks the raw constitutional weight of a man sitting in prison while his co-defendant, convicted on the same tainted evidence, lives free.

Equal justice, selectively applied

The phrase carved into the Supreme Court's facade is not a suggestion. It is supposed to be a commitment. Two men. Same crime. Same evidence. Same prosecutorial misconduct. One received relief. One was told the Court would not even listen.

Louisiana's courts refused to follow the Supreme Court's own precedent. The Supreme Court, with Monday's denial, let them get away with it. Whatever one thinks of Sotomayor's broader jurisprudence, her dissent here asked a question the majority never answered: why should identical constitutional violations produce opposite results?

James Skinner is still incarcerated. Michael Wearry is not. The evidence against both was the same. The misconduct that tainted it was the same. The only difference is which man the system chose to correct for.