A state constitution provides that in criminal trials the accused shall have the right to confront all witnesses face to face. In a case where a child testifies behind one-way glass, the state supreme court reverses the conviction and orders a new trial, based entirely on the state constitution. The United States Supreme Court would most likely...

A state constitution provides that in criminal trials the accused shall have the right to confront all witnesses face to face. In a case where a child testifies behind one-way glass, the state supreme court reverses the conviction and orders a new trial, based entirely on the state constitution. The United States Supreme Court would most likely...

• A. Review the federal issue to ensure protection of confrontation rights under the U.S. Constitution.
• B. Not review a judgment that rests entirely on state law independent of federal law.
• C. Review the case to ensure uniform application of federal constitutional standards.
• D. Defer to the state court's interpretation of its own constitution.

Answer: (B)

The United States Supreme Court will not review a state-court decision that rests entirely on independent state grounds. When a state court decision is based solely on state law or on the interpretation of the state constitution, there is no federal issue for the Supreme Court to decide, so it lacks jurisdiction to review. Here, the state supreme court reversed the conviction entirely because of its state constitution. Since this ruling turns on state law, not on the U.S. Constitution or a federal question, the Supreme Court would decline to review. This aligns with the rule that federal review is available only when a federal question is properly presented. The other options would only fit if a federal issue were involved or if the Court was applying federal standards directly. For example, reviewing to ensure uniform federal constitutional standards would require a federal question; deferring to a state court’s interpretation of its own constitution would misstate the Court’s jurisdiction, which hinges on whether the decision rests on federal versus state grounds.

The United States Supreme Court will not review a state-court decision that rests entirely on independent state grounds. When a state court decision is based solely on state law or on the interpretation of the state constitution, there is no federal issue for the Supreme Court to decide, so it lacks jurisdiction to review.

Here, the state supreme court reversed the conviction entirely because of its state constitution. Since this ruling turns on state law, not on the U.S. Constitution or a federal question, the Supreme Court would decline to review. This aligns with the rule that federal review is available only when a federal question is properly presented.

The other options would only fit if a federal issue were involved or if the Court was applying federal standards directly. For example, reviewing to ensure uniform federal constitutional standards would require a federal question; deferring to a state court’s interpretation of its own constitution would misstate the Court’s jurisdiction, which hinges on whether the decision rests on federal versus state grounds.